Connect with us

Cannabis News

Federal Judge Dismisses Anti-Marijuana Groups’ Lawsuit Challenging Medicare Hemp Coverage Program

Published

1 day ago

on

A federal judge has granted the government’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit by opponents of marijuana legalization challenging a new initiative by the Trump administration. Cover up to $500 of hemp-derived products annually for eligible Medicare patients. The program being implemented by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) focuses largely on CBD, but also allows a certain amount of THC in products.

Judge Trevor N. McFadden ruled Friday that the prohibitionist and activist groups, led by Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), as well as a biopharmaceutical corporation MMJ International Holdings and its subsidiaries, “have no standing to bring this case.”

“Each one claims an injury too abstract or far-fetched to open the doors of the court,” he said.

“At the outset, the Court notes that it need not address most of the questions raised by plaintiffs in their motions,” McFadden wrote. “This is because Plaintiffs’ case suffers from a fatal flaw: failure to establish the Article III bar to present their claims. The Court addresses only that jurisdictional hole and will dismiss the entire case and deny Plaintiffs a preliminary injunction.”

In April, lawyers Section of Health and Human Services. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and CMS Director Mehmet Oz presented the summary saying that Anti-cannabis organizations filed lawsuit against Medicare hemp coverage policy they have no value to bring the case. Now the judge has agreed.

“There’s no plaintiff’s body that doesn’t show enough for an injury,” McFadden said. “All claim that resources were diverted in response to the establishment of the EIB, but none specified that this diversion of resources ‘impeded’ its core activities or prevented it from ‘pursuing its true purpose’.”

As for MMJ and its subsidiaries, the judge said, “it is not a direct and present competitor with anyone who sells hemp to Medicare beneficiaries.”

“In short, MMJ has no product on the market for Medicare beneficiaries and no sense of when it might be,” he said.

Beyond advocacy organizations, the lawsuit involves individual plaintiffs, including anti-marijuana advocate David Evans, who says he was sued for the Substance Access Beneficiary Engagement Incentive (BEI) as a Medicare recipient, but federal agencies reject that argument.

“If Evans’s worst-case scenario — his doctor recommends hemp — were to come true, Evans would suffer no specific harm,” McFadden wrote.

“In short, regardless of theory, plaintiffs have failed to establish an Article III injury from the implementation of the BEI,” the judge said. “The use and regulation of hemp are important issues, and the plaintiffs understandably have strong views on those issues. But while BOTH may not like it, they have not been harmed. So the case will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

SAM, for its part, is reversing the dismissal and says it may appeal.

“We fundamentally disagree with the court’s decision today. All parties have shown substantial injury that exceeds the threshold required by Article III,” said SAM President and CEO Kevin Sabet. “We are currently exploring all of our options, including an appeal. We will not rest until we make sure America’s seniors are safe from these false medical claims and the harms of dangerous marijuana products.”

McFadden previously denied the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order to stop the program from running on April 1st.

Notably, the government’s motion to dismiss the case says it was prepared in part by Matthew Zorn, an HHS attorney, before he took the federal job. litigated numerous cases against government agencies on behalf of plaintiffs seeking marijuana and drug policy reform..

The CMS initiative comes after President Donald Trump signed an executive order in December calling on the attorney general to finalize a federal marijuana redistricting rule, now underway, that also includes “access improvement” components for full-spectrum CBD products.

Under the program, inhalable preparations are not allowed, and products cannot contain more than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC by dry weight and a total of 3 milligrams of THC per serving.

The THC limit could potentially change if the law the president signed late last year goes into effect as planned in November. Such a policy would strictly limit the types of cannabis products currently allowed under the 2018 Farm Bill signed by Trump during his first term, specifically banning hemp derivatives with a total of 0.4 milligrams of THC per container.

The federal agencies stated in a brief of the lawsuit that “CMS does not pay for hemp products under the BEI.”

“Participating providers supply eligible products at their own cost, subject to an annual limit of $500 per beneficiary. BEI operates within a shared savings framework that defines the underlying model. If a provider’s investment in beneficiary engagement reduces the beneficiary’s total cost of care, it shares in the savings generated by the provider and CMS. If it does not absorb new, if the provider does not absorb new. BEI is essentially entitled to certain interventions. It is a provider decision that allows one to reduce downstream claims.

Meanwhile, the White House Office of Management and Budget recently held a series of meetings a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) CBD product enforcement policy.

The FDA also issued guidance making it clear that it does not intend to interfere Establish a Medicare coverage plan for hemp-derived products.

CMS finalized a rule that will be adopted separately Coverage of certain hemp products, primarily as specialized health-related benefits, through Medicare Advantage the plans

Read the judge’s the order dismissing the lawsuit challenging the Medicare hemp program below:

user photo Nanny Kimzy.

Marijuana Moment is made possible with the help of readers. If you rely on our pro-cannabis journalism to stay informed, consider a monthly Patreon pledge.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cannabis News

TSA clarifies that cannabis policy has not changed

Published

9 hours ago

on

May 24, 2026

By











Over the past week, many news organizations have been running exaggerated headlines about a supposed change by the federal government to allow marijuana to be brought into airports and airplanes. But it’s not true, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) tells Marijuana Moment.

“TSA’s policy on medical marijuana has not changed,” a TSA spokeswoman said in an email Wednesday.

“According to the TSA website: If any illegal substance or evidence of criminal activity is found during the security screening, TSA will refer the matter to law enforcement,” they said. While it’s true that the agency’s list of medical marijuana “What can I bring?” section of its website was updated on April 27, there were no major changes in policy.

Currently, the website says “Yes,” passengers can carry medical marijuana in carry-on and checked bags with special instructions. But the TSA cannabis policy has said “Yes” to medical marijuana, with the same caveats, since 2019.

Read more at Marijuana Moment










Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Alabama Officials Move To Delay Automatic Rescheduling Of Marijuana Under State Law Following Trump’s Federal Move

Published

9 hours ago

on

May 24, 2026

By

“We’re not saying Alabama won’t do this. We’re definitely going to do this, but if you get it without objection, it’s scheduled right away.”

By Anna Barrett, Alabama Reflector

The governing body of the Alabama Department of Public Health voted Thursday against the federal rescheduling of marijuana, saying state health officials needed more time to determine how to implement it.

Dr. Scott Harris, Alabama’s top health official, told members of the state’s Public Health Commission that the state has “full intent” to implement the change.

“We’re not saying Alabama won’t do this,” Harris told the committee. “We’ll certainly do this, but if you get it without objection, it’s scheduled immediately. If you do nothing, it’s scheduled within 30 days. I’m going to ask you to take the third option, which is to oppose it. Then we just have a little time to figure this out with all our other stakeholders.”

The committee’s vote was unanimous. Brian Hale, ADPH’s legal director, said the objection would be open to public comment during the meeting. This period would last 30 to 60 days.

“The objection is simply to allow more time for input on the implications of this rescheduling,” Hale said. “There will be a public hearing, we’ll see the comments that way, and then we’ll talk to other stakeholders, licensing boards and others who might be affected to see what their input might be.”

In April, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) moved marijuana from Schedule I — the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) list of drugs with the least amount of abuse and legal use — to Schedule III, which, according to the DEA, drugs have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence. The order followed an executive order President Donald Trump signed in December to keep the DOJ on track to reschedule.

Former President Joe Biden ordered the DOJ to reschedule the drug in 2024, but hearings on the move were canceled in early 2025.

The federal mandate applies to medical marijuana products in states that allow the use of the drug. The move means those businesses can deduct business expenses from federal taxes and investigators have access to legal products in the state. As a Schedule I drug, only cannabis grown in a federal facility could be researched, greatly limiting the supply available to researchers.

Alabama has a medical cannabis program approved by the Legislature in 2021. A Montgomery The dispensary said last week it hopes to make medical marijuana available to patients soon. A message seeking comment from Vince Schillec, the dispensary’s owner, was left Thursday afternoon.

Harris said the reconsideration would not violate state law, but after speaking with the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission (AMCC), he was unsure how the reconsideration would affect the program.

“We’ve worked very hard to try to figure out what the ramifications of this are. There are a number of things that don’t completely conflict with state laws or other regulations, but they require some thought as to how to implement them,” Harris said.

Justin Aday, AMCC’s general counsel, said in a telephone interview that the commission does not foresee any immediate impact from the federal reorganization or a delay in the reorganization at the state level.

“We certainly understand the commission and the desire to gather additional information about the implications of the federal reorganization and what the implications would be, depending on how medical cannabis is scheduled at the state level,” Aday said. “We will certainly participate in that process as necessary, and we will provide all the information we can.”

This story was first published by the Alabama Reflector.

Marijuana Moment is made possible with the help of readers. If you rely on our pro-cannabis journalism to stay informed, consider a monthly Patreon pledge.

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

New California emergency marijuana rules aim to help state businesses

Published

1 day ago

on

May 23, 2026

By











California officials are making additional reforms to help the state’s marijuana businesses take advantage of federal tax and other benefits under the Trump administration’s redistricting move.

Specifically, the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) proposed emergency regulations on Monday to allow companies with current licenses that use both medical and adult marijuana to secure a secondary license through a simplified process to separate the segments of their operations, as federal planning changes currently only cover medical cannabis.

Under the DCC’s proposal, marijuana companies could “create a second entity and hold two separate licenses (one for adult use and one for medicinal use) on the same premises” under the expedited regulations.

“DCC is working to make this pathway available due to the timing and uncertainty of the federal process,” the department said. “Additional operational components (such as tracking and tracing requirements, local permitting, tax collection, and other implementation issues) are still being evaluated and will be addressed through future guidance or rulemaking as needed.”

Read more at Marijuana Moment










Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media