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 a Child Turns 18: The Gap in Your Family’s Estate Plan
Once a child turns 18, parents lose the automatic legal authority to make medical and financial decisions on their behalf, even if the child still lives at home or remains on the family’s insurance. Three documents close that gap: a durable power of attorney, a health care proxy or directive, and a HIPAA authorization. For […]
Business Mediation: An Overview and Practical Tips
Business mediation is a confidential, voluntary process in which a neutral third party helps companies negotiate a resolution to a commercial dispute without going to trial. Because working with a mediator is very different from litigating in the courtroom, it is important to understand how commercial mediation works, when it makes sense for your dispute, […]
Top 5 Causes Leading to Construction Defect Litigation
The five most common causes of construction defect litigation are design defects, substandard materials, workmanship defects, code violations, and subsurface defects. Because these flaws can compromise a building’s integrity, functionality, or safety, they frequently lead to disputes involving multiple parties and high financial stakes. Key takeaways: What is Construction Defect Litigation? Construction litigation is complex, […]
How to Protect Your New Jersey Business When Going through a Divorce
The most effective ways to protect your business in a divorce are put in place before one begins: a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement, clean separation of business and personal finances, and divorce contingencies built into your operating or buy-sell agreements. If divorce is already underway, the priorities shift to establishing how the business is classified […]
The most common franchise disputes involve breach of contract, franchise termination and non-renewal, intellectual property rights, territorial encroachment, royalty and fee payments, franchisor support obligations, and violations of state franchise laws such as the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act. Franchisors and franchisees can often resolve these conflicts by providing written notice detailing the dispute and […]
Reputational Risk and Legal Exposure: Why New Jersey Businesses Must Manage Them Together
New Jersey businesses must manage legal and reputational risk together because modern disputes play out on two fronts at once: the legal proceeding itself and the court of public opinion, where customers, employees, investors, and business partners often reach conclusions long before a judge or jury has had the opportunity to evaluate the facts. Success […]
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!
