A public interest law firm representing a man who says federal law unconstitutionally violated his property rights has joined a chorus of voices calling for the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a case challenging a key foundation of the federal marijuana ban.

In an amicus brief filed with the court Wednesday, the Pacific Legal Foundation — representing Florida-based Michael Colosi — said its client’s property dispute “exemplifies” how the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution has been misinterpreted and misapplied, giving the federal government unauthorized authority over intrastate commerce.

In Colosi’s case, his local government told him he had to pay a $200,000 development fee to build a home on a specific property in Charlotte County because a species of bird known as the Florida scrub might someday populate the area. That’s because the federal government classifies the species as “threatened.”

“Colosi argued that the federal government lacks the authority to regulate an intrastate species without a direct connection to interstate commerce,” the brief states. “Colosi and petitioners face the same dilemma: they are aggrieved by federal regulation of activities that the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate.”

Until then, the Massachusetts marijuana companies urging the Supreme Court to take up their case also argue that federal law unconstitutionally prohibits intrastate cannabis activity in violation of the Commerce Clause.

“Canna Provisions is not the first petitioner to ask this Court to clarify the scope of the Commerce and Necessary and Appropriate Clauses, but its case presents a unique opportunity to temper past wrongly decided precedents and protect property rights,” the filing states.

“Colosi’s effort to build a house was blocked by federal regulations because an endangered species within the state, the Florida scrub jay, can nest on the land. When questioned about the condition it placed on Colosi’s intended land use, the federal government used the Commerce and Necessary Clause to justify regulation of intrastate commerce by its impregnable Commerce and Clause argument. This Court’s adoption of its Commerce and Clause in Necessary and Appropriate Jurisprudence is not the first, And he won’t be the last landowner to be harmed by government overreach under federal laws.

“This court should take this opportunity to correct federal precedent in its Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses before more people are harmed,” he says, noting that the policy’s dissonance “has far-reaching negative effects on property owners, local governments, and the freedom that enumerated jurisdictions seek to protect. This court should grant the request.”

The filing highlights how the cannabis case, if taken up by the Supreme Court, could have far-reaching implications beyond the marijuana issue specifically, depending on what the justices decide.

Amicus short presented in one day by The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, likewise, beg the courts to examine the case, Canna Provisions v. bond the court has scheduled a closed-door meeting for next month to address the issue.

Power law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP filed the writ of certiorari last month on behalf of its clients and the Department of Justice. he declined the opportunity to present a brief for or against the case the judges

A The lead attorney representing the petitioners told Marihuana Moment that he is “hopeful.”— even if a little “nervous” — about the judges ultimately deciding to take up the matter and address the key legal question of the constitutionality of the federal ban on cannabis.

“Time is of the essence,” said Josh Schiller, noting the dramatic shift in public opinion and state laws governing cannabis. “We believe the timing of this case is right out of necessity; the industry needs to get relief from federal oversight at this time.”

Before the conference was organized, it was founded by Koch The Americans for Prosperity Foundation also filed an amicus brief encourage judges to take up the case.

US Court of Appeals He rejected the arguments of the state’s illegal cannabis companies the company is being replaced in May. One of the final blows of the high-profile case was a dismissal of the claims by the lower court. But it has been widely reported that the plaintiffs’ legal teams have long intended to end the case before the nine high courts.

Four justices must vote to approve the cert petition for the court to hear the case.

While it’s unclear whether SCOTUS will ultimately take up the case, it’s a sign that they may at least be interested in appealing to the courts. 2021 Statement of Justice Clarence Thomasas the court denied review of a separate dispute involving a medical marijuana dispensary in Colorado.

Thomas’s comments at the time suggested that it would be appropriate to revisit the precedent-setting case, Gonzales vs. Raichwhere the Supreme Court specifically determined that the federal government could enforce a ban on the cultivation of cannabis that took place entirely in California under Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce.

The initial complaint in the current case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, argued that the government’s continued prohibition of marijuana under the CSA was unconstitutional because Congress had it for decades. “The states have rejected any hypothesis that federal control of regulated marijuana is necessary.”

—
It’s Marijuana Moment tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelic and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters by pledging at least $25/month, you’ll get access to our interactive maps, charts, and audio calendars so you never miss a development.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracking and become a Patreon supporter to gain access
—

At oral arguments in the appeal late last yearDavid Boies told the justices that under the Constitution, Congress can only regulate commercial activity within a state—in this case, marijuana—if not regulating that state activity would “substantially interfere with or undermine Congress’s statutory authority.” interState trade”.

Boies, the firm’s president, has a long list of past clients, including the Justice Department, former Vice President Al Gore and the plaintiffs in a case that overturned California’s same-sex marriage ban.

The judges, however, said they were “unconvinced” that “the CSA remains entirely intact in terms of the regulation of commercial activity involving marijuana for non-medical purposes, which is the activity carried on by the appellants, on their own.”

The district court, meanwhile, said in the case that while there are “compelling reasons to reconsider” current cannabis programming, its hands were effectively tied by the US Supreme Court’s past precedent. go.

He is behind a decision by the Trump administration to re-regulate marijuana. President Donald Trump said in late August that within weeks cannabis would be subject to Section III of the CSA.

Meanwhile, last month the Supreme Court agreed to hear a A separate case on the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting people from using marijuana or other drugs for the purchase or possession of firearms. The Trump administration has argued that the policy “targets a category of people who are at clear risk of firearm misuse” and should be upheld.