US Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Challenges to Cannabis Ban

The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear appeals regarding a refusal to determine the constitutionality of the federal cannabis ban. Plaintiffs in the Washington v. Barr case, initially filed in 2017, include the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), former NFL football player and current cannabis entrepreneur Marvin Washington, disabled military veterans, two children with severe movement disorders, and the non-profit group Cannabis Cultural Association.

>>> What can the cannabis industry expect if Donald Trump wins?

Plaintiffs argue that the federal status of cannabis violates their civil and constitutional liberties, as well as their freedom to travel within the United States. The group also argued that the federal cannabis ban is "based on discrimination and is applied in a discriminatory manner". According to NORML, “they further argued that the current administrative mechanisms in place to allow for the reconsideration of Cannabis' Schedule I classification - such as the process that allows citizens to petition the US Drug Enforcement Administration - the federal police agency of the United States Department of Justice created in 1973 and tasked with the suppression and control of narcotics - are ‘illusory’ and therefore likely to never succeed."

>>> What can the cannabis industry expect if Joe Biden wins?

A US District Judge initially rejected the plaintiffs' arguments in 2018, summarizing the decision by stating: “there is no fundamental right (to possess or use cannabis). Every court that has considered the specific and carefully structured right at issue here has held that there is no substantive due process right to use medical cannabis."

>>> Sechat confirms the largest event on Medicinal Cannabis in Brazil for 2021

Later, the group appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the second circuit, where the request was also denied. Legal documents filed by NORML in appellate court cases state that the federal cannabis law is "unconstitutional because all three branches of government have promoted laws and policies in direct conflict with its Schedule I status”. The documents expose a fundamental paradox - if cannabis is illegal at the federal level for all purposes, and the three government branches have acted to allow cannabis businesses, then the federal government is nullifying its own law”.

>>> UN may vote on cannabis recommendations in December

NORML's legal counsel, Keith Stroup, characterized the refusal to hear the appeals as unfortunate but not surprising. "This outcome is not entirely surprising," he said. "Courts rarely provide relief for those of us who believe that the cannabis ban violates our civil and constitutional liberties. It was Congress that imposed the federal plant ban, and ultimately it is up to Congress to repeal this destructive and discriminatory policy."

Source: Roland T. Flackfizer/Testset