Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Federal Cannabis Prohibition

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday revealed that it has declined to hear a case challenging the federal prohibition of cannabis. The court posted an order list showing the case had failed to receive the four votes from justices needed to grant certiorari, according to a report from Marijuana Moment.

The case, Canna Provisions v. Bondi, was on Friday’s agenda for a private session among the justices. In the legal action, a group of Massachusetts-based cannabis companies argues that the federal government’s prohibition of cannabis is an unconstitutional restraint on interstate trade in violation of the Commerce Clause.

A U.S. appeals court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments in May. The law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP subsequently submitted a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court in October. Supporters, including the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, filed amicus briefs in support of the plaintiff’s arguments, efforts that apparently failed to sway the court.

Josh Schiller, the lead attorney representing the plaintiffs, previously told Marijuana Moment that he was “hopeful” but “nervous” about the possibility of arguing the case before the Supreme Court.

“Time is of the essence,” Schiller said at the time, noting the significant change in public sentiment and state laws governing cannabis. “We think that this is the right time for this case because of the need—the industry needs to get relief from federal oversight at the moment.”

Case ‘Widely Viewed as a Long Shot’

The case was widely followed by professionals in the cannabis industry because of the possibility it could upend federal marijuana policy, no matter how small the chance. Kelly Hayes, a California attorney specializing in cannabis and hemp laws, says that “From the outset, Supreme Court review was widely viewed as a long shot.”

“Although many stakeholders were hopeful that this case might finally prompt the Court to directly address the constitutionality of federal cannabis prohibition—particularly in light of the growing divide between federal law and widespread state legalization—the procedural posture of the case and the Supreme Court’s institutional practices made review unlikely,” Hayes writes in an email to IgniteIt. “The Supreme Court grants certiorari in only a small fraction of cases each term, and it has historically been reluctant to wade into disputes involving the cannabis industry, especially those that would require a sweeping constitutional determination.”

“Despite prior commentary from individual justices suggesting concern with the coherence of federal marijuana policy, the Court as an institution has consistently declined opportunities to confront the issue head-on,” she continued. “Against that backdrop, while the petition presented a novel and well-developed legal theory, the likelihood that the Court would elect to take up such a consequential and politically charged question remained limited.”

The Supreme Court’s decision closes the door on a high-profile legal challenge even as federal cannabis policy appears to be in flux elsewhere. With the Trump administration reportedly preparing an executive order to reschedule marijuana, the next major shift in federal policy may come from the White House.