While most attention has focused on the recently concluded marijuana rescheduling hearing, an equally significant legal battle has unfolded in the D.C. Circuit over the final rescheduling order ("Final Order"). Petitioners, the Department of Justice, newly intervening parties, and amici participants have exchanged a series of briefs over the past month. Those filings may ultimately
The hearing on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the rescheduling of “marijuana” commenced on June 29, 2026 and will end tomorrow, July 15th. The Government brought two witnesses to the stand on the first day, and then seven prohibitionist organizations had the floor for the remaining seven days of the hearing. As I discussed
Until last week, federal law prohibited marijuana users from owning or possessing firearms, even in states where marijuana is legal. In recent years, we have covered the differing opinions by federal courts challenging this status quo. On June 18, 2026, the Supreme Court held in a 9-0 decision in U.S. v. Hemani that 18 U.S.C.
With just over two weeks until DEA’s expedited processing deadline for state legal operators to apply for DEA registration, several petitioners litigating the legality of the DEA’s final rule have filed a motion to stay DEA’s final rule in the D.C. Circuit (“Motion”). The Motion was brought by the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association,
El 22 de mayo, los estados de Nebraska, Indiana y Luisiana presentaron un recurso de revisión ante el Tribunal de Apelación de los Estados Unidos para el Circuito del Distrito de Columbia («Circuito de DC») en el que impugnaban la resolución definitiva del fiscal general en funciones («FG») por la que se clasificaba la marihuana aprobada por la FDA y autorizada por los estados en la Lista III de la Ley de Sustancias Controladas («CSA»). El Circuito de DC
En los últimos dos años, hemos observado cómo un número cada vez mayor de empresas del sector de la marihuana han adoptado la postura de que el artículo 280E del Código de Rentas Internas (IRC) ya no les es aplicable. Algunas de estas empresas han adoptado esa postura tras consultar con abogados y contables públicos certificados. Este cambio de estrategia es anterior al decreto ejecutivo de Trump del 18 de diciembre de 2025, destinado a reclasificar la marihuana
La legislación sobre el cannabis sigue sumida en un limbo constitucional. Estados como Washington y California han creado mercados del cannabis sólidos y estrictamente regulados, mientras que la legislación federal sigue considerando la marihuana como mercancía de contrabando. Esa tensión ha chocado ahora de frente con una de las doctrinas más poderosas de la Constitución: la cláusula comercial latente. Recientemente, en enero de 2026, el Noveno Circuito sopesó
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Canna Provisions, Inc. et al. v. Bondi, a high-profile lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the federal prohibition of intrastate (and not interstate) cannabis activity. The denial offered no reasoning; nor was it accompanied by dissents or concurrences from any of the justices—all of which is
Yesterday late afternoon, Oregon cannabis wholesaler Jefferson Packing House (JPH) filed another dormant commerce clause (DCC) challenge to protectionist state cannabis laws. You can view the complaint here. I say “another" DCC challenge because JPH prosecuted DCC litigation in late 2022; and also because several DCC cannabis lawsuits have been filed in recent years, with
The creative defense that failed A trademark infringement defendant argued it couldn't be sued in federal court because its cannabis business was engaged in illegal activity under federal law. This seemingly clever strategy fell flat in Colorado federal court, representing the latest decision in a growing trend of federal judges retaining cannabis-related litigation despite the
