| Ticker | Status | Jurisdiction | Filing Date | CP Start | CP End | CP Loss | Deadline |
|---|
| Ticker | Case Name | Status | CP Start | CP End | Deadline | Settlement Amt |
|---|
| Ticker | Name | Date | Analyst Firm | Up/Down | Target ($) | Rating Change | Rating Current |
|---|
A group of cannabis companies filed an appeal challenging a federal court decision to uphold cannabis prohibition under the U.S. Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
This appeal, led by renowned attorney David Boies, contests the dismissal of a high profile lawsuit aimed at blocking federal enforcement of cannabis prohibition against state-regulated businesses.
The original case, Canna Provisions, Inc. v. Merrick B. Garland, was brought by industry heavyweights including Verano Holdings Corp. (OTC:VRNOF), Canna Provisions and Wiseacre Farm among others. The plaintiffs argued that federal cannabis laws are outdated and unconstitutional, especially with 38 states now having legalized some form of marijuana. They contended that Congress’s original goal of eradicating marijuana through the CSA no longer applies in the modern regulatory landscape.
However, the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts dismissed the case, relying on a Supreme Court's 2005 decision, which upheld federal authority over intrastate marijuana regulation. Still, the court acknowledged the plaintiffs’ compelling arguments.
Next step is a response from the defendant in the case Attorney General Merrick Garland. His response will outline the government's position on the appeal and whether they believe the district court's dismissal was correct. After both sides present their arguments (the plaintiffs and the government), the U.S. Court of Appeals will decide whether to uphold the dismissal or overturn it.
Read Also: High Times Hit With $5M Class Action Lawsuit Over Unfulfilled Stock Deals
On September 10, the plaintiffs formally appealed the ruling in the First Circuit court.
“Thirty-eight states have now legalized and regulate marijuana within their borders. The district court acknowledged that Plaintiffs-Appellants ‘alleged persuasive reasons for a reexamination of’ the CSA but ruled it was bound by precedent.”, reads the appellant’s presentation.
Boies, as head of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, has represented clients such as the U.S. Department of Justice and Al Gore.
In this case, Boies’ main argument is that the federal government's enforcement of marijuana prohibition is no longer necessary or justified under the Commerce Clause.
The appeal also raises a Fifth Amendment claim, asserting that cannabis cultivation and use are "deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition," making the CSA's prohibition unconstitutional. The plaintiffs’ legal team further suggests that the landscape has changed dramatically since the Raich ruling, with bipartisan calls for marijuana reform growing.
Garland is expected to file a response by October 10, 2024. After the Court makes a decision and depending on the outcome, either side could appeal again, potentially bringing the case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Read Next: Federal Court Dismisses Marijuana Companies’ Lawsuit Against Government Prohibition
Cover: AI generated image
Posted In: VRNOF
