Challenge To Constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act
A former NFL player, two children, and an Iraq War veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, all of whom are medical marijuana patients, together with a social justice nonprofit organization recently filed a federal lawsuit asserting that marijuana’s status as a “Schedule I” narcotic under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is so irrational that it violates the U.S. Constitution. The defendants in the case are Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Acting DEA Administrator Charles Rosenberg, the U.S. Justice Department, the DEA and the federal government.
The landmark lawsuit alleges that the federal government’s classification of marijuana was never supported by strong scientific/medical evidence. To be classified under Schedule I, a drug: (i) must have a high potential for abuse; (ii) must have absolutely no medical use in treatment; and (iii) cannot be used or tested safely, even under strict medical supervision.
As highlighted in the suit, a government commission convened in the 1970s under President Richard Nixon recommended that marijuana use should not be criminal or subject someone to an indictment based on its findings that it posed very little risk to the public. “Looking only at the effects on the individual, there, is little-proven danger of physical or psychological harm from the experimental or intermittent use of the natural preparations of cannabis,” the report stated. Nonetheless, President Nixon adopted his own approach, declaring all drug abuse as “public enemy number one in the United States.”
According to the complaint, “The Nixon Administration ushered the CSA through Congress and insisted that cannabis be included on Schedule I so that African Americans and war protesters could be raided, prosecuted and incarcerated without identifying the actual and unconstitutional basis for the government’s actions.”
Plaintiffs Assail Marijuana Classification
The lawsuit argues that classifying marijuana as a Class I drug is even more “irrational” today. “Indeed, the Federal Government has admitted repeatedly in writing and implemented national policy reflecting that Cannabis does in fact, have medical uses and can be used and tested safely under medical supervision,” the complaint states. “On that basis, the federal government has exploited cannabis economically for more than a decade by securing a medical cannabis patent and entering into license agreements with medical licensees.”
The suit further contends that the federal government’s refusal to revisit the classification is harming medical marijuana patients and businesses seeking to serve them. One of the plaintiffs is former Dallas Cowboys defensive end Marvin Washington. He is challenging the CSA because it prevents him from obtaining grants under the Federal Minority Business Enterprise program to start a medical marijuana company. Other plaintiffs who are medical marijuana patients maintain that federal criminalization prohibits them from traveling freely by airplane or to states where medical cannabis is illegal, and the Cannabis Cultural Association argues that CSA was enacted and continues to be enforced in a discriminatory manner and prevents minorities from participating in the legal cannabis industry.
If the plaintiffs prevail, the decision would not repeal the CSA but would result in a permanent injunction against enforcement of the CSA with respect to marijuana. The case is venued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Docket No. 1:17-cv-05625. Medical marijuana patients and cannabis industry members should stay apprised of related developments.
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:
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan McKillop, at 201-806-3364.
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.
When to Settle and When to Fight: A Litigator's Framework
Every lawsuit comes with a cost, and knowing when to settle a lawsuit is one of the most consequential decisions a business owner will face. Experienced litigators understand how to minimize cost and obtain certainty for their clients. For many business owners, the decision is viewed almost entirely through a financial lens: What will it cost […]
A Whistleblower Just Filed a Complaint Against Your Company: Here's What to Do Now
Few situations create more uncertainty than learning that an employee has filed a whistleblower complaint. Questions arise immediately: Is the allegation legitimate? Should the employee be placed on leave? Do we need to notify our insurance carrier? Are we now prevented from disciplining the employee if there are unrelated ongoing work related issues? There is […]
Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors: An Alternative to Bankruptcy for Distressed Businesses
When a business reaches the point where it can no longer service its debts or otherwise resolve its liabilities, management is often faced with a difficult question: is a bankruptcy filing necessary or is there another way to perform an orderly liquidation or sale of the business assets? While Chapters 7 and 11 of the […]
Breaking Down New Jersey’s “Mansion” Tax: What Buyers and Sellers Need to Know
For many years, the New Jersey Mansion Tax has been a significant consideration in high-value real estate transactions. Recent legislative changes, however, have substantially altered how the tax operates, including who is responsible for paying it and the amount owed in certain transactions. Whether you are purchasing, selling, or investing in New Jersey real estate, […]
Estate Planning for Digital Assets Under New Jersey Law
As our personal and financial lives increasingly move online, estate planning must evolve to address a new category of property: digital assets. From email accounts and social media profiles to cryptocurrency and cloud-stored business records, these assets often carry both financial and sentimental value. Yet, without proper planning, they can become inaccessible—or even lost—upon incapacity […]
The Role of Representation and Warranty Insurance in M&A Transactions
In today’s mergers and acquisitions market, representation and warranty (R&W) insurance has become a common feature of deal negotiations. Once used primarily in larger transactions, R&W insurance is now frequently incorporated into middle-market deals as buyers and sellers look for efficient ways to allocate risk and close deals. When structured properly, R&W insurance can help […]
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!
