Politics
Marijuana Companies Shouldn’t Be Allowed To Defend Rescheduling By Joining Lawsuit, Anti-Cannabis Groups Say
Marijuana reform opponents are asking a federal court not to let two medical cannabis companies intervene in a lawsuit that seeks to block the Trump administration from moving forward with federally rescheduling the drug.
The businesses—MedPharm Iowa, LLC, which does business as Bud & Mary’s, and Tri-Mountain Pure, LLC—moved late last month to join the side of the government in opposing the litigation from prohibitionists.
But now, in two separate filings, anti-rescheduling groups that brought legal challenges that have since been consolidated are arguing that the firms should not be allowed to take part in the litigation.
Lawyers for Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA) wrote in a brief that the marijuana companies “have not identified any argument they would make that would not be pressed by the government” and, as such, “are not entitled to intervention.”
“The motion to intervene should be denied because…they have not shown that the government will not adequately represent their interests in this case,” it says.
“Proposed Intervenors fail to demonstrate that their interests diverge from the government’s in any way or that their presentations in the case will differ at all from the government’s. They do not point to any legal argument or strategy they might pursue that will not be pursued by the government. All they offer is a single sentence asserting that they, unlike the government, have ‘private commercial interests’ at stake, namely ‘a specific, focused interest in the transfer of their products to schedule III and the opportunity to register with DEA to ensure their operations do not violate the Controlled Substances Act.'”
A separate filing from attorneys for Cannabis Industry Victims Educating Litigators, Kenneth Finn, MMJ BioPharma Cultivation Inc., MMJ Biopharma Labs, Inc., MMJ International Holdings, Inc. and New Directions Addiction Recovery Services similarly says that the cannabis companies “do not identify a single legal argument in defense of the order that Respondents are unable or unwilling to make.”
“Their motion instead lists commercial and operational grievances—tax treatment under § 280E, pending registration applications, banking, research, and hiring—that are irrelevant to the issue in this case, namely whether Respondents acted within their statutory authority and observed required procedures.”
The opponents of the federal rescheduling move say that to the extent the medical cannabis firms want to shape the litigation, the court could allow them to file amici curiae briefs as outside parties instead of becoming direct participants.
Bud & Mary’s, which operates in Iowa, and Tri-Mountain Pure, which is based in Pennsylvania, have both already applied for federal registration using a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) form that the agency made available for cannabis businesses seeking protections and benefits that come with rescheduling, and their motion to intervene says they would be “would be directly harmed” if cannabis reform opponents’ challenges are successful.
The litigation challenging the federal cannabis rescheduling move is actually comprised of three separately filed lawsuits that have been consolidated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
One suit is led by prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA), who claim they are “aggrieved” by the reform. Another comes from a coalition of anti-marijuana activists, substance misuse professionals, doctors and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation. A third challenge was filed by the attorneys general of Indiana, Nebraska and Louisiana—though the later state later withdrew from the suit.
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice recently filed a brief opposing marijuana opponents’ request to pause the cannabis rescheduling proposal from moving forward amid the overall litigation—arguing that the drug testing industry association and pharmaceutical company seeking to block the reform have “pocketbook interests served by keeping all marijuana in schedule I.”
The developments in the litigation come as DEA this week wrapped up an administrative hearing on the marijuana rescheduling proposal in which government witnesses and lawyers highlighted the medical uses and relative safety of cannabis while opponents challenged the process by which officials developed the recommendation for the reform.
Under an action announced by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April, marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license immediately moved from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, as did any marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The hearing is considering broader cannabis rescheduling, including for recreational products.
The suit from SAM and NDASA challenging rescheduling was signed by attorneys at Torridon Law PLCC, where former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, led DOJ during Trump’s first term in office, is a partner.
SAM had announced in January that it was hiring Barr’s firm to legally combat cannabis rescheduling after Tump signed an executive order directing officials to complete the process expeditiously.
Meanwhile, the House Appropriations Committee voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling. Bipartisan lawmakers told Marijuana Moment, however, that they don’t expect the legislative effort to block rescheduling to succeed.
Separately, SAM and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking to block a Trump administration program to cover certain hemp-derived products through Medicare. That case was dismissed by a federal judge in May, but that decision is being appealed.
Read the full recent briefs in the marijuana rescheduling lawsuit below:
Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan.
