Justice Thomas Questions Federal Stance on Marijuana
In Standing Akimbo, LLC, a Colorado state-legal cannabis dispensary challenged the federal ban on tax deductions for state-licensed cannabis businesses. As we have discussed in prior articles, Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits businesses from deducting otherwise valid business expenses where the business “consists of” dealing in controlled substances set forth in Schedules I or II of the Controlled Substance Act (CSA). Justice Thomas wrote his statement in response to the Supreme Court’s decision to deny certiorari in the case.
The dispute began when the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued summonses to obtain information about Standing Akimbo from the Colorado Department of Revenue, Marijuana Enforcement Division (MED). Specifically, the IRS requested reports from the state’s seed-to-sale inventory tracking system about the marijuana possessed by the dispensary, and how and when the marijuana was transferred to other third parties – including the identity of these other third parties.
While the IRS maintains that it needs the confidential information to determine the proper tax under §280E, it reserves all rights to share any incriminating information with federal law enforcement. Accordingly, Standing Akimbo sought to quash the subpoenas, citing the threat of criminal prosecution for drug trafficking. Among the arguments raised before the U.S. Supreme Court, the dispensary argued that the CSA should not preempt Colorado’s expressly state-legal sales of cannabis and that §280E violates the Sixteenth Amendment by taxing more than constitutional income.
The Supreme Court declined to hear the case. While Justice Thomas agreed with the Court’s decision not to delve into the questions raised on appeal, citing the “still-developing nature of the dispute,” he did raise a number of concerns about the federal government’s stance on marijuana in light of widespread legalization at the state level.
In his statement, Justice Thomas specifically questioned the ongoing validity of the Court’s decision in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), which held that Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce authorized it “to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana.”
According to Thomas, while Raich may have made sensewhen it was decided, federal policies of the past 16 years have greatly undermined its reasoning. “Once comprehensive, the Federal Government’s current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana,” Justice Thomas wrote. “This contradictory and unstable state of affairs strains basic principles of federalism and conceals traps for the unwary.”
Justice Thomas Highlights Unequal Treatment of Cannabis Businesses
In his statement, Justice Thomas specifically addressed the plight of state-legal cannabis businesses like Standing Akimbo. He emphasized that legality under state law and lax federal criminal enforcement do not ensure equal treatment for cannabis businesses.
“This disjuncture between the Government’s recent laissez-faire policies on marijuana and the actual operation of specific laws is not limited to the tax context,” Thomas wrote. “Many marijuana-related businesses operate entirely in cash because federal law prohibits certain financial institutions from knowingly accepting deposits from or providing other bank services to businesses that violate federal law.”
Justice Thomas noted several other legal risks that cannabis businesses suffer due to the dichotomy of federal and state law. “Cash-based operations are understandably enticing to burglars and robbers. But, if marijuana-related businesses, in recognition of this, hire armed guards for protection, the owners and the guards might run afoul of a federal law that imposes harsh penalties for using a firearm in furtherance of a ‘drug trafficking crime,’” he wrote. Justice Thomas added that cannabis businesses may also find themselves on the wrong side of a civil suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
“Suffice it to say, the Federal Government’s current approach to marijuana bears little resemblance to the watertight nationwide prohibition that a closely divided Court found necessary to justify the Government’s blanket prohibition in Raich,” Justice Thomas concluded. “If the Government is now content to allow States to act ‘as laboratories’ and ‘try novel social and economic experiments,’ then it might no longer have authority to intrude on ‘[t]he States’ core police powers . . . to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.’”
Key Takeaway
In issuing his statement, Justice Thomas did not create any binding law. However, he did add credibility to arguments to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level. As several cannabis bills work their way through Congress, Justice Thomas’ statement will certainly be used to help convince conservative members of Congress to embrace reform, although the success of those efforts is still uncertain.
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact Dan McKillop, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
This article is a part of a series pertaining to cannabis legalization in New Jersey and the United States at large. Prior articles in this series are below:
Disclaimer: Possession, use, distribution, and/or sale of cannabis is a Federal crime and is subject to related Federal policy. Legal advice provided by Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC is designed to counsel clients regarding the validity, scope, meaning, and application of existing and/or proposed cannabis law. Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC will not provide assistance in circumventing Federal or state cannabis law or policy, and advice provided by our office should not be construed as such.
What Business Owners Get Wrong Before Meeting a Litigation Attorney
What should you expect when meeting a litigation attorney about a business dispute? You should expect to describe the dispute in your own words, hand over the most important documents, flag any deadlines or immediate threats, and leave with a clearer picture of the problem, what information is still needed, and the likely next steps. […]
Arbitration vs. Litigation vs. Mediation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Know Before Signing a Contract
Arbitration resolves disputes privately before an arbitrator whose decision is usually final, while litigation resolves them in court with full rights of appeal. Whether a business ends up in arbitration or litigation is often decided when it signs the contract, long before any dispute arises. Key Takeaways When facing a contract dispute, carefully consider your […]
Can You Own Part of a New Jersey Business Without a Written Agreement?
Can you own part of a business in New Jersey without a written agreement? Yes, it is possible. Under New Jersey’s Uniform Partnership Act, a partnership can arise when two or more people carry on a business as co-owners for profit, whether or not they ever intended to form one. Ownership doesn’t necessarily depend on […]
Crisis-Proofing Your New Jersey Business: Building a Crisis Response Plan Before You Need One
For New Jersey businesses, crisis preparedness should be viewed as a legal and operational function, not simply an emergency-management exercise. A well-designed crisis response plan can help preserve evidence, protect confidential communications, meet reporting obligations, limit unnecessary exposure, and prevent an already difficult situation from becoming a larger legal problem. Key Takeaways A serious crisis […]
Monmouth County's Next Development Wave: What Developers and Investors Need to Know
Monmouth County is entering a significant new phase of development. For those looking to acquire property or undertake a new project, understanding the market opportunity is only the beginning. The more important question is whether a particular property can actually be developed as contemplated and what approvals, agreements, and other conditions will be required to […]
Are Your Conversations with AI Shielded from Discovery? Courts Are Split
Whether a client’s prompts to a generative AI tool and the documents it produces are protected from disclosure depends on the case type, who claims protection, and whether counsel was involved. In United States v. Heppner, a New York federal judge ruled that a criminal defendant’s communications with an AI platform were protected by neither […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
