DOJ

While the cannabis industry is closely following the recently published notice of proposed rulemaking from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), which will move cannabis from a Schedule 1 controlled substance to a Schedule 3 controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (“CSA”), a very important federal cannabis litigation matter is making its way through federal court. That case is Canna Provisions, Inc., Gyasi Sellers, Wisacre Farm, Inc., and Verano Holdings Corp.v. Merrick Garland, case no. 23-cv-30113. Filed in October of last year, the Canna Provisions case is more important than ever in the context of rescheduling (in my opinion) and this post serves as an update on what’s happening in court.

On May 16, the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA“) published its 92-page notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM“) to move marijuana from schedule 1 on the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) to schedule 3 (ironically, the proposed rule itself only takes up a couple of paragraphs on the last two pages of the NPRM). On the same day, the DEA released an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel (within the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), which prepares legal opinions of the U.S. Attorney General “and provides its own written opinions and other advice in response to requests from the Counsel to the President, the various agencies of the Executive Branch, and other components of the Department of Justice”) in response to questions from the U.S. Attorney General’s office about schedule 3 marijuana (the “Opinion”). While the NPRM represents the proposed DEA rule that moves marijuana from schedule 1 to schedule 3, the Opinion is essentially the OLC’s roadmap for fending off legal and administrative challenges to this historic move.

Due to federal illegality, the cannabis industry has long been plagued by federal agencies taking a variety of different enforcement approaches to cannabis businesses. From the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to the National Labor Relations Board to the Bureau of Reclamation, the cannabis industry has not really received consistent treatment across the board. All that to say that a new threat has entered the chat–cannabis qui tam actions. Not many people know what a “qui tam” action is. And with good reason as it’s fairly antiquated and an obscure means through which the federal government (potentially) seeks financial recovery from individuals and businesses that defraud it. In addition to the “gotchas” of IRC 280E and banking, cannabis qui tam actions are now on the table.

A group of Illinois cannabis companies face an antitrust lawsuit alleging that they maintained illegal interlocking directorates. An interlocking directorate is where a person from one company serves as an officer or director at a competing company in violation of Section 8 of the Clayton Act. On April 18, 2022, a plaintiff named True Social…

Attorney General Sessions rescinded, effective January 4, 2018, previous enforcement priorities of the DOJ related to marijuana – including the Cole Memo. The Sessions Memo dictates that federal prosecutors should follow the “Principles of Federal Prosecution” originally set forth in 1980 and subsequently refined over time in chapter 9-27.000 of the U.S. Attorney’s Manual. Sessions goes on to state in his memo that “These principles require federal prosecutors deciding which cases to prosecute to weigh all relevant considerations, including federal law enforcement priorities set by the Attorney General, the seriousness of the crime, the deterrent effect of criminal prosecution, and the cumulative impact of particular crimes on the community.” It is important to note that Sessions has not previously set any specific enforcement priorities with respect to marijuana, nor has this memo created any new enforcement priorities of the DOJ. Rather Sessions has removed the foundational guidance that states have relied on to regulate the production and distribution of marijuana pursuant to state law and the will of each states’ citizens. The Cole Memo actually set 8 enforcement priorities for the DOJ with respect to marijuana, which Sessions has now unilaterally rescinded.

Last week, the DOJ sent a letter to trustees who handle consumer bankruptcy reminding them that marijuana is a federally illegal drug and warned them not to handle any money from the sale of marijuana-related property.  The letter goes on to state “Our goal is to ensure that trustees are not placed in the…

  This is on the heels of a record setting $1.3 Billion in sales last year and threats over a federal crackdown on adult-use marijuana.

What does this mean?

If the trends hold, 2017 will be the third-year in a row for Colorado seeing dramatic growth.  While there are numerous factors driving the increase, the linked…

A favorable ruling from the Ninth Circuit in United States v. McIntosh is a reassuring win for the medical marijuana industry.  This federal case concluded that § 542 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act prohibits DOJ from spending money on actions that prevent medical marijuana states giving practical effect to their state laws that authorize…