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.
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Commercial Zoning: What Every Business Owner Needs to Know
If you operate a business, you need to understand how commercial zoning rules may impact you. For instance, zoning regulations can determine how you can develop a property and what type of activities your business can conduct. To ensure that you aren’t taken by surprise, it is always a good idea to consult with experienced […]
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.
Plaintiffs Challenging Constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act In Federal Court
Author: Daniel T. McKillop
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.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
