throbber
NO. 20 148
`
`In the
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`MARVIN WASHINGTON DB, AS PARENT OF INFANT AB
`JOSE BELEN SC, AS PARENT OF INFANT JC AND
`CANNABIS CULTURAL ASSOCIATION, INC.,
`
`
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`WILLIAM PELHAM BARR, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
`AS UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES
`DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TIMOTHY J. SHEA, IN HIS OFFICIAL
`CAPACITY AS ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT
`ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT
`ADMINISTRATION, AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`Respondents.
`
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
`United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
`
`BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION
`FOR THE REFORM OF MARIJUANA LAWS ET AL. AS
`AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
`
`
`
`
`ANDREW P. SCHRIEVER, ESQ.
`CUDDY & FEDER LLP
`445 HAMILTON AVENUE
`14TH FLOOR
`WHITE PLAINS, NY 10601
`(914) 761 1300
`ASCHRIEVER@CUDDYFEDER.COM
`
`DAVID C. HOLLAND, ESQ.
` COUNSEL OF RECORD
`201 EAST 28TH STREET
`SUITE 2R
`NEW YORK, NY 10016
`(212) 842 2480
`DCH@HOLLANDLITIGATION.COM
`
`SEPTEMBER 14, 2020
`
` COUNSEL FOR AMICI CURIAE
`
`SUPREME COURT PRESS ♦ (888) 958 5705 ♦ BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
`
`

`

`i
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... ii
`
`INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................ 1
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 2
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................... 4
`
`I.
`
`IS IT FUTILE TO UPHOLD THE SUPREMACY OF
`THE SCHEDULE I STATUS OF CANNABIS UNDER
`THE CSA WHEN EACH BRANCH OF FEDERAL
`GOVERNMENT HAS AFFIRMATIVELY ATTEMP
`TED TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT STATE MEDICAL
`CANNABIS PROGRAMS WHICH NULLIFY THE
`SUPREMACY OF THAT DESIGNATION? ............... 4
`
`A. Supremacy of the Federal Controlled
`Substances Act ............................................ 4
`
`B. The Rise of the Nullification Crisis ............ 5
`
`II. IS THIS “BACKDOOR NULLIFICATION” CRISIS
`THE PROPER SCENARIO FOR THIS COURT TO
`INVOKE THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL AGAINST
`THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO
`PREVENT DUE PROCESS HARMS AND UNFAIR
`NESS TO PATIENTS AND INDUSTRY PARTICI
`PANTS WHO DETRIMENTALLY RELIED ON
`OFFICIAL ACTS AND STATEMENTS INDUCING
`THEM TO ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES OTHERWISE
`UNLAWFUL UNDER THE FEDERAL LAW? ............ 17
`
`A. Futility of Administrative Challenges and
`Need to Invoke Estoppel Against the
`Federal Government .................................. 17
`
`B. The Precedent for Estoppel ...................... 19
`
`CONCLUSION .......................................................... 25
`
`

`

`ii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`TABLE O F AUTH ORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Americans for Safe Access v. Drug
`Enforcement Administration,
`706 F.3d 438 (D.C. Cir., 2013),
`cert. denied, 571 U.S. 885,
`134 S.Ct. 267, 187 L.Ed.2d 151 (2013) ............. 18
`
`Cox v. Louisiana,
`379 U.S. 559 (1965) ........................................... 20
`
`Energy Labs, Inc. v. Edwards Engineering,
`Inc., 2015 WL 3504974 4 (N.D. Ill. 2015) ......... 13
`
`Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n,
`505 U.S. 88 (1992) ............................................... 4
`
`Garcia v. Does,
`779 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2015) ................................... 21
`
`Ginsburg v. ICC Holdings, LLC,
`2017 WL 5467688
`(N.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2017) ................................ 14
`
`Gonzales v. Raich,
`545 U.S. 1, 125 S.Ct. 2195,
`162 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) ................................... 10, 18
`
`Green Earth Wellness Ctr., LLC
`v. Atain Specialty Ins. Co.,
`163 F. Supp. 3d 821 (D. Colo. 2016) ................. 14
`
`Green Sol. Retail, Inc. v. U.S.,
`855 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2017) ......................... 13
`
`Haeberle v. Lowden,
`2012 WL 7149098 (Colo. Dist. Ct. 2012) .......... 15
`
`

`

`iii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
`
`Page
`
`Heckler v. Community Health Services,
`467 U.S. 51, 104 S.Ct. 2218,
`81 L.Ed.2d 42 (1984) .......................................... 22
`
`Hillman v. Maretta,
`569 U.S. 483 (2013) .............................................. 4
`
`Hillsborough Cnty., Fla. v. Automated Med.
`Labs., 471 U.S. 707 (1985) ................................. 4
`
`In re Malul,
`614 B.R. 699 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2020) ................. 15
`
`In Re Pharmacann LLC,
`123 U.S.P.Q.2d 1122 (T.T.A.B. 2017) ................... 15
`
`In re Way to Grow, Inc.,
`597 B.R. 111 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2018) ................. 15
`
`INS v. Hibi,
`414 U.S. 5, 94 S.Ct. 19,
`38 L.Ed.2d 7 (1973) ..................................... 22, 23
`
`INS v. Miranda,
`459 U.S. 14, 103 S.Ct. 281,
`74 L.Ed.2d 12 (1982) ......................................... 23
`
`James Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula,
`309 U.S. 94 (1940) .............................................. 4
`
`Kettler v. U.S.,
`139 S.Ct. 2691 (2019) ........................................ 24
`
`Krumm v. Drug Enforcement
`Administration, 739 Fed. Appx. 655
`(D.C. Cir., Sept. 24, 2018) ................................. 18
`
`Landgraf v. USI Film Productions,
`511 U.S. 244 (1994) ............................................ 20
`
`

`

`iv
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
`
`Page
`
`Mann v. Gullickson,
`2016 WL 6473215
`(N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2016) ...................................... 13
`
`McCracken v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co.,
`896 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir. 2018) ......................... 14
`
`Montana v. Kennedy,
`366 U.S. 308, 81 S.Ct. 1336,
`6 L.Ed.2d 313 (1961) ........................................ 22
`
`Montilla v. U.S.,
`457 F.2d 978 (Ct. Cl. 1972) ......................... 19, 21
`
`Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Richmond,
`496 U.S. 414, 110 S. Ct. 2465,
`110 L.Ed.2d 387 (1990) ............................... 22, 23
`
`Raley v. Ohio,
`360 U.S. 423, 79 S.Ct. 1257,
`3 L.Ed.2d 1344 (1959) ................................... 20, 24
`
`Sandusky v. Goetz,
`944 F.3d 1240 (10th Cir. 2019) ........................... 13
`
`Schweiker v. Hansen,
`450 U.S. 785, 101 S.Ct. 1468,
`67 L.Ed.2d 685 (1981) ....................................... 23
`
`Suzanne Sisley, M.D. et. al., v. U.S. Drug
`Enforcement Administration, et. al.,
`No. 20 71433 (9th Cir., August 18, 2020) ......... 18
`
`U.S. v. Blood,
`435 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2006) ............................. 20
`
`U.S. v. Canori,
`787 F.3d 181 (2nd Cir. 2013) ........................ 5, 10
`
`

`

`v
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
`
`Page
`
`U.S. v. Cox,
`906 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2018),
`cert. denied, 139 S.Ct. 2690,
`204 L.Ed.2d 1090 (2019) .................................... 24
`
`U.S. v. Giffen,
`473 F.3d 30 (2nd Cir. 2006) ................................ 20
`
`U.S. v. McIntosh,
`833 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2016) ....................... 12, 25
`
`U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis
`Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483,
`121 S.Ct. 1711, 149 L.Ed.2d 722 (2001) ........... 17
`
`U.S. v. Ormsby,
`252 F.3d 844 (6th Cir. 2001) ............................... 20
`
`U.S. v. Pennsylvania Industrial Chemical
`Corp. (PICCO), 411 U.S. 655 (1973) ............. 21, 24
`
`U.S. v. Pisarski,
`965 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................. 13
`
`U.S. v. Washington,
`887 F.Supp.2d 1077 (D.Mont.), adhered to
`on reconsideration, 2012 WL 4602838
`(D. Mont. October 2, 2012) ................................. 23
`
`Washington v. Barr,
`No. 18 859 (2d Cir. 2019) .................................... 2
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
`
`U.S. Const. Art. II, § 3 ................................................ 5
`
`U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2 ............................................ 4
`
`

`

`vi
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
`
`Page
`
`STATUTES
`
`21 U.S.C. § 811(a)(1) .................................................... 5
`
`21 U.S.C. § 811(a)(2) .................................................... 5
`
`21 U.S.C. § 812 ......................................................... 5, 6
`
`21 U.S.C. § 841 .................................................... 13, 18
`
`21 U.S.C. § 903 ............................................ 5, 6, 16, 24
`
`CA Health & Safety Code § 11350 ................................ 6
`
`Hart Scott Rodino Antitrust
`Improvements Act of 1976 .................................. 8
`
`JUDICIAL RULES
`
`Sup. Ct. R. 37 .............................................................. 1
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`21 C.F.R. 1301 ........................................................... 24
`
`Fed Register,
`Vol. 156, 53688 (Aug. 12, 2016) ........................ 24
`
`LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
`
`H.R. 1158 (2020) ....................................................... 11
`
`H.R. 4378 (2019) ....................................................... 11
`
`H.R. 4660 (Rohrabacher) 2015 .................................. 10
`
`MORE Act of 2019–H.R. 3884 ................................... 11
`
`SAFE Act–H.R. 1468 (2019) ..................................... 11
`
`STATES Act–H.R.2093 (2019) ................................. 11
`
`

`

`vii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
`
`Page
`
`GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
`
`David Ogden,
`Department of Justice, Memorandum for
`Selected United States
`Attorneys–Investigations and Prosecution
`in States Authorizing the Medical Use of
`Marijuana, https //www.justice.gov/sites/
`default/files/opa/legacy/2009/10/19/
`medical marijuana.pdf ........................................ 6
`
`Department of Justice,
`Press Release, https //www.justice.gov/
`opa/pr/justice department issues memo
`marijuana enforcement ....................................... 7
`
`Department of the Treasury,
`Guidance Subject BSA Expectations
`Regarding MarijuanaRelated
`Businesses, FIN 2014 G001, https //
`www.FinCEN.gov/resources/statutes
`regulations/guidance/bsa expectations
`regarding marijuana related businesses .......... 7
`
`James Cole,
`Department of Justice, Memorandum for
`All United States Attorneys–Guidance
`Regarding Marijuana Enforcement,
`https //www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/
`3052013829132756857467.pdf ............................ 7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`viii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
`
`Page
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Cresco Labs,
`Press Release, https //www.
`newcannabisventures.com/cresco labs
`cannabis acquisition clears department
`of justice initial waiting period without
`second request/ .................................................... 8
`
`David Downs,
`Historic House Vote to Legalize
`Marijuana Expected This Month, Leafy,
`https //www.leafly.com/news/politics/
`marijuana legalization more act news ............. 11
`
`Jonathan Cooper,
`DOJ Allows MedMen to Buy
`PharmaCannGreat News for Origin
`House
`Sep. 11, 2019 https //seekingalpha.com/
`article/4291015 doj allows medmen to
`buy pharmacann great news for origin
`house .................................................................... 8
`
`Kyle Jagger,
`Marijuana Moment, January 15, 2019
`https //www.marijuanamoment.net/
`trump attorney general nominee pledges
`not to go after legal marijuana
`businesses/ ........................................................... 9
`
`Marijuana Moment,
`Marijuana Legislation Tracking, https //
`www.marijuanamoment.net/bills/ .................... 11
`
`

`

`ix
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
`
`Page
`
`Michael Walsh,
`Yahoo News, https //news.yahoo.com/barr
`signals support ending marijuana
`legalization 212041886.html .............................. 9
`
`Niall McCarthy,
`Which States Made the Most Tax
`Revenue from Marijuana in 2018?,
`Forbes, https //www.forbes.com/sites/
`niallmccarthy/2019/03/26/which states
`made the most tax revenue from
`marijuana in 2018 infographic/
`#7547293b7085 .............................................. 2, 25
`
`Robert J. Reinstein,
`The Limits of Executive Power,
`59 Am. U. L. Rev. 259 (2009) .............................. 5
`
`World Population Review,
`https //worldpopulationreview.com/state
`rankings/states with medical marijuana ........... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`
`
`INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE 1
`
`National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana
`Laws (NORML) and Empire State NORML
`
`The mission of NORML, a not for profit corpora
`tion, and its New York State affiliate, is to advocate
`for public policy changes so responsible possession
`and use of marijuana by adults is no longer subject to
`criminal penalties. NORML further advocates for a
`regulated commercial cannabis market so that activi
`ties involving the for profit production and retail sale
`of cannabis products are safe, transparent, consumer
`friendly, and subject to state and/or local licensure.
`NORML advocates for additional legal and regulatory
`policy changes so those who use marijuana respon
`sibly no longer face social stigma or workplace dis
`crimination, and so those with past criminal records
`for marijuana related violations can have their records
`automatically expunged.
`
`New York City Cannabis Industry Association
`(NYCCIA) and Hudson Valley Cannabis Industry
`Association (HVCIA)
`
`The NYCCIA and HVCIA are affiliated regional
`not for profit organizations which foster dialogue,
`develop policy, and rules for the self governance of the
`anticipated cannabis market in New York City and the
`Hudson Valley.
`
`1 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37, all parties consent to the
`filing of this amici curiae brief. No part of this brief was authored
`by counsel for any party, and no person or entity other than amici
`curiae and its counsel made a monetary contribution towards
`the submission of this brief.
`
`

`

`2
`
`New York Cannabis Bar (“Cannabar”)
`
`Cannabar was an unincorporated think tank
`focused on challenging the classification of cannabis
`under the federal Controlled Substances Act. It was
`the genesis of the challenge in Washington v. Barr.
`
`
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`A supremacy and nullification crisis has loomed
`for the past 24 years with regard to the 34 States
`that implemented some form of cannabis legalization
`program despite its prohibited Schedule I designation
`under the federal Controlled Substances Act (here
`inafter, “CSA”). This crisis has been fomented by all
`branches of government. Each have made statements
`and taken actions to protect and further the state
`cannabis programs despite federal illegality. States
`have passed cannabis regulations that defy federal
`supremacy. Since 2014, Congress began passing
`spending appropriations amendments handcuffing the
`Executive branch and federal law enforcement from
`using federal funds to investigate and prosecute
`state compliant cannabis patients and providers. As a
`positive result of this nullification crisis, hundreds of
`thousands of jobs have been created in state cannabis
`industries, with billions in revenue generated.2
`
`The Second Circuit Court of Appeals did not
`believe in 2013 that United States Department of
`
`2 https //www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/03/26/which
`states made the most tax revenue from marijuana in 2018
`infographic/#7547293b7085
`
`

`

`3
`
`Justice prosecutorial guidance memoranda created a
`de facto rescheduling of cannabis or a constitutional
`crisis. However, in 2019, Attorney General Barr, during
`his confirmation hearings, directly identified his
`concerns about it. For him, the guidance memoranda,
`the spending appropriations amendments which were
`signed into law by the Executive, and the federal
`judicial rulings upholding them created a “backdoor
`nullification” of federal law. Barr testified that while
`personally opposed to legalizing cannabis, he believed
`it unfair and vowed not to retroactively prosecute
`patients and industry participants who in good faith
`relied upon federal officials’ statements and actions
`that they would not interfere with state legal cannabis
`programs despite the conflict with federal law.
`
`This nullification crisis rejected by the Second
`Circuit yet, articulated by Attorney General Barr, must
`be resolved. Rather than letting future political whims
`undo the efforts of the three coordinate branches of
`federal government to protect and promote state
`cannabis programs, this Court should, as a matter of
`fairness and Due Process, invoke estoppel against
`the federal government to prevent injustice through
`retroactive prosecution of those who detrimentally
`relied on such statements and violated federal law.
`Invocation of estoppel would end this constitutional
`crisis and cede the power to regulate cannabis to the
`states as the federal government has effectively
`attempted to do through nullification for more than
`two decades.
`
`

`

`4
`
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`IS IT FUTILE TO UPHOLD THE SUPREMACY OF THE
`SCHEDULE I STATUS OF CANNABIS UNDER THE CSA
`WHEN EACH BRANCH OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
`HAS AFFIRMATIVELY ATTEMPTED TO PRESERVE AND
`PROTECT STATE MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS
`WHICH NULLIFY THE SUPREMACY OF THAT
`DESIGNATION?
`
`A. Supremacy of the Federal Controlled Substances
`Act
`
`The Supremacy Clause of the United States Con
`stitution promotes national uniformity by precluding
`state law from interfering with the enforcement of
`federal law. U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2. It gives Con
`gress the power to preempt state law if it is found to
`be in conflict with federal law. Hillman v. Maretta, 569
`U.S. 483 (2013). “Where enforcement of . . . state law
`would handicap efforts to carry out the plans of
`the United States, the state enactment must . . . give
`way.” James Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula, 309 U.S.
`94, 103 104 (1940). To avoid a constitutional crisis,
`where “compliance with both federal and state regu
`lations is a physical impossibility,” the “state law is
`nullified to the extent that it actually conflicts with fed
`eral law.” Hillsborough Cnty., Fla. v. Automated Med.
`Labs., 471 U.S. 707, 713 (1985) See, Gade v. Nat’l
`Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88, 98 (1992).
`
`The CSA is a series a federal statutes that organ
`izes controlled substances into five schedules based on
`(1) their potential for abuse, (2) their accepted medical
`
`

`

`5
`
`uses, and (3) their accepted safety for use under medical
`supervision and potential for psychological or physical
`dependence. See 21 U.S.C. § 812. Cannabis was placed
`in Schedule I, “ . . . the most restrictive of the five
`schedules, the violation of which may result in criminal
`penalties.” U.S. v. Canori, 787 F.3d 181, 183 (2nd Cir.
`2013).
`
`The classification of any drug under the CSA is
`not permanent. Congress may amend it at any time,
`and the Attorney General is empowered to reschedule
`it (21 U.S.C. § 811(a)(1)) or de schedule it entirely upon
`finding that it lacks the requirements for inclusion. 21
`U.S.C. § 811(a)(2). Congress did not intend to com
`pletely occupy the field of controlled substance regu
`lation to the exclusion of any state law. State laws
`may operate provided that the Attorney General does
`not find a “positive conflict” between it and the CSA
`such “that the two cannot consistently stand together”
`requiring complete preemption of the state law. 21
`U.S.C. § 903.
`
`B. The Rise of the Nullification Crisis
`
`1. Acts of the Executive Branch
`
`While the Executive Branch, headed by the Presi
`dent, is charged with the duty to “faithfully execute the
`laws of the United States” U.S. Constitution, Article
`II, § 3, it has not done so with regard to state can
`nabis programs. “Dispensing power” occurs when the
`Executive, rather than “faithfully executing” the law,
`instead attempts to bypass or suspend legal prohib
`itions imposed by it.” See, Robert J. Reinstein, The
`Limits of Executive Power, 59 Am. U. L. Rev. 259, 278
`279 (2009). Such dispensing of power has been the
`
`

`

`6
`
`catalyst to the nullification crisis caused by state can
`nabis programs.
`
`The crisis started in 1996 when the Executive
`branch failed to preempt California’s Proposition 215,
`the “Compassionate Use Act”, which established the
`country’s first medical cannabis program. California
`Health and Safety Code § 11350, et. seq. State sanction
`of cannabis as a form of medical intervention subverts
`the Schedule I finding that is has, “no currently
`accepted medical use in the United States.” 21 U.S.C.
`§ 812. Thirty three states have established medical
`cannabis programs since 19963. However, Congress
`and the Executive branch have chosen to stand pat
`to allow the continued nullification of the Schedule I
`designation of cannabis rather than preempt those
`programs.
`
`Since 1996, no Attorney General, the nation’s Chief
`law enforcement officer, has invoked 21 U.S.C. § 903
`finding a “positive conflict” between the CSA and
`state cannabis programs. In 2009, the Justice Depart
`ment’s “Ogden Memorandum” gave guidance to federal
`prosecutors in districts within medical cannabis states
`advising them to conserve resources and refrain from
`pursuing medical patients who were compliant with
`state cannabis laws.4 That guidance was enhanced
`by in 2013 by the “Cole Memorandum” which advised
`federal prosecutors not to investigate or prosecute
`
`3 https //worldpopulationreview.com/state rankings/states
`with medical marijuana
`
`4 Memorandum for Selected United States Attorneys–Investi
`gations and Prosecution in States Authorizing the Medical Use
`of Marijuana, https //www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/legacy/
`2009/10/19/medical marijuana.pdf
`
`

`

`7
`
`compliant medical cannabis operators.5 While the
`guidance memoranda did not dispense power to the
`states, they did exemplify the commitment of the
`Executive branch to allow state cannabis programs
`to persist without interference. Due to the proliferation,
`the industry’s commercial needs required guidance
`for federally regulated banks to facilitate cannabis
`related transactions. In 2014, the “FinCEN Memoran
`dum” advised banks that, subject to guidance criteria
`and transparency, they could do so without fear of
`violating money laundering or other federal criminal
`statutes.6
`
`On January 4, 2018, Attorney General Sessions
`repealed the Cole Memo stating
`
`“ . . . today’s memo on federal marijuana
`enforcement simply directs all U.S. Attorneys
`to use previously established prosecutorial
`principles that provide them all the necessary
`tools to disrupt criminal organizations, tackle
`the growing drug crisis, and thwart violent
`crime across our country.”7
`
`Despite Session’s recission, in 2019, the Justice
`Department’s Anti Trust Division approved the merger
`of multi state operators making them some of the
`
`5 Memorandum for All United States Attorneys–Guidance
`Regarding Marijuana Enforcement, https //www.justice.gov/iso/
`opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf
`
`6 Guidance Subject BSA Expectations Regarding Marijuana
`Related Businesses, FIN 2014 G001 https //www.FinCEN.gov/
`resources/statutes regulations/guidance/bsa expectations
`regarding marijuana related businesses
`
`7 https //www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice department issues
`memo marijuana enforcement
`
`

`

`8
`
`largest cannabis related businesses in the United
`States despite nullifying the supremacy of the CSA.8
`
`Sessions sent shock waves through the state
`cannabis industries. Participants feared that their
`detrimental reliance upon the actions and pronounce
`ments of federal officials prompting their entrance
`into state programs despite federal illegality may have
`imperiled their liberty investments. Those concerns
`registered with Congressional members whose constit
`uents were impacted. It became a focal point of then
`Attorney General Nominee, William Barr’s confirm
`ation hearings.
`
`Senator Cory Booker inquired about the nominee’s
`thoughts on his predecessor’s rescission. Mr. Barr
`responded “ . . . it was important not to upset the
`interests and expectations of the businesses and
`
`8 DOJ Allows MedMen to Buy PharmaCannGreat News for
`Origin House, Sep. 11, 2019 https //seekingalpha.com/article/
`4291015 doj allows medmen to buy pharmacann great news
`for origin house
`
`“CHICAGO October 30, 2019 (BUSINESS WIRE)–
`Cresco Labs . . . one of the largest vertically integrated
`multistate cannabis operators in the United States,
`today announced the expiration of the waiting period
`under the Hart Scott Rodino Antitrust Improvements
`Act of 1976 . . . in respect to Cresco Labs’ pending
`acquisition of Tryke Companies (“Tryke”) (the
`“Transaction”). The waiting period, during which the
`Transaction could not be completed, expired without
`the issuance of a so called “second request” by the
`United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division
`(the “DOJ”).”
`
`https //www.newcannabisventures.com/cresco labs cannabis
`acquisition clears department of justice initial waiting period
`without second request/
`
`

`

`9
`
`investors who have entered the legal marijuana
`industry.” He furthered “I said I’m not going to go after
`companies that have relied on the Cole memoran
`dum.”9 Mr. Barr was articulating Due Process and
`fairness concerns in not wanting to retroactively
`prosecute those who in good faith entered into state
`medical cannabis industries based upon prior federal
`statements, actions, and abstinence from enforcing
`the supremacy of the CSA.
`
`Mr. Barr testified about the undeniable constitu
`tional conflict stating “However, I think the current
`situation is untenable and really has to be addressed.
`It’s almost like a backdoor nullification of federal
`law.”10 Questioned further about the “backdoor nullifi
`cation” Senator Booker asked “Do you think it’s appro
`priate to use federal resources to target marijuana
`businesses that are compliant with state law?” to which
`Mr. Barr responded “No”.11 He further explained that
`“ . . . to the extent that people are complying with the
`state law’s distribution and production and so forth,
`we’re not going to go after that. But I do feel we can’t
`stay in the current situation.” He testified that the
`nullification was “ . . . breeding disrespect for the fed
`eral law.”12
`
`9 https //news.yahoo.com/barr signals support ending marijuana
`legalization 212041886.html See also, Kyle Jagger, Marijuana
`Moment, January 15, 2019, https //www.marijuanamoment.net/
`trump attorney general nominee pledges not to go after legal
`marijuana businesses/
`
`10 Id.
`
`11 Id.
`
`12 Id.
`
`

`

`10
`
`This crisis identified by Attorney General Barr was
`not recognized six years earlier in U.S. v. Canori,
`787 F.3d 181 (2nd Cir. 2013). There, the Second Circuit
`Court of Appeals held that the Ogden and Cole pros
`ecutorial guidance memoranda did not have the force
`of law and did not cause a “de facto rescheduling” of
`marijuana–thus, no constitutional crisis had been
`created. Id. at 183. But, since 2013, each of the three
`branches of federal government, despite the separation
`of powers doctrine, have made statements and taken
`affirmative actions to assist the other in directly and
`collaterally protecting and promoting those state
`regulated cannabis programs.
`
`2. Acts of Congress
`
`Because of supremacy, Congress through the
`“commerce clause” can preempt all state cannabis
`programs and criminalize the conduct of patients and
`market participants. See, Gonzales v. Raich, 545
`U.S. 1, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005). In 2014,
`however, Congress took a different tack passing the
`“Rohrbacher Farr Amendment” to the Commerce,
`Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations
`Act, 2015 (H.R. 4660). The Amendment prohibited
`the federal law enforcement from using federal funds
`to investigate and prosecute state compliant medical
`cannabis operators and patients. That Amendment
`was signed into law by President Obama on December
`16, 2014. It was extended as the “Rohrbacher Blum
`enauer Amendment” by means of Consolidated Appro
`priations Act of 2016 (a/k/a the 2016 Omnibus Spend
`ing Bill, Pub. L. 114 113), signed into law on December
`18, 2015. Further extensions have been in the Consol
`idated Appropriations Act 2018 (a/k/a the 2018 Omni
`bus Spending Bill, Pub. L. 115 141) signed by President
`
`

`

`11
`
`Trump on March 23, 2018, and extended again by
`him to November 21, 2019 (H.R. 4378). On December
`20, 2019, President Trump signed the “Consolidated
`Appropriations Act, 2020” (H.R. 1158), which is in
`effect today.
`
`According to Marijuana Moment, as of September
`9, 2020, there are more than 1,544 bills pending before
`state and federal legislatures to promote, protect,
`and/or establish legalized cannabis programs.13 Pend
`ing before various committees of Congress are
`
`a. The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment
`and Expungement Act (MORE Act of 2019–
`H.R. 3884)–Due for full House vote in Sep
`tember, 202014
`
`b. The Strengthening the Tenth Amendment
`Through Entrusting States Act (STATES Act,
`H.R. 2093 of 2019)
`
`c. The Secure and Fair Enforcement Act
`(SAFE Act of 2019–H.R. 1468)
`
`Given the discourse taking place in Congress to
`protect and promote state cannabis programs through
`spending appropriations restrictions and bills to
`strengthen state’s rights over them, it is quixotic
`why Congress chooses to proceed only half way in
`efforts to legalize cannabis rather than simply de
`schedule it. That is why invocation of the doctrine of
`estoppel is needed to end the nullification crisis and
`to protect those who relied on the guidance of federal
`
`13 https //www.marijuanamoment.net/bills/
`
`14 https //www.leafly.com/news/politics/marijuana legalization
`more act news
`
`

`

`12
`
`officials and agencies and engaged in the cannabis
`space despite federal illegality.
`
`3. Acts of the Judiciary
`
`With cannabis programs flourishing in the
`majority of the United States, Courts must grapple
`with the constitutional crisis across a kaleidoscopic
`range of contexts.
`
`In the context of criminal law, the Rohrbacher Farr
`Amendment’s handcuffing of federal law enforcement
`by prohibiting federal prosecution of state compliant
`individuals and businesses was upheld in U.S. v.
`McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2016). There, the
`Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated
`
`“[Department of Justice] is currently prohi
`bited from spending funds from specific appro
`priations acts for prosecutions of those who
`complied with state law. But Congress could
`appropriate funds for such prosecutions
`tomorrow. Conversely, this temporary lack
`of funds could become a more permanent lack
`of funds if Congress continues to include the
`same rider in future appropriations bills.”
`U.S. v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d at 1179.
`
`The McIntosh Court’s pointing out the potential
`for shifting political sands regarding federal cannabis
`tolerance is akin to what Attorney General Barr was
`alluding to in his confirmation testimony.
`
`The Ninth Circuit reiterated the legitimacy of
`Congress limiting the ability of the Executive branch
`to faithfully execute the laws stating that
`
`“ . . . Congress passed the Consolidated and
`
`

`

`13
`
`Further Continuing Appropriations Act of
`2015 (“Appropriations Act of 2015”), which
`put the kibosh on all expenditures of federal
`prosecutions for marijuana use, possession,
`or cultivation if the defendant complied
`with the state’s medical marijuana laws.”)
`U.S. v. Pisarski, 965 F.3d 738, 740 (9th Cir.
`2020).
`
`Likewise, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has
`stated that
`
`“Despite its legalization in” numerous states
`and Washington, D.C. “for medical use” and
`in a number of states “for recreational use,
`marijuana is still classified as a federal ‘con
`trolled substance’ under schedule I of the
`Controlled Substances Act.” The United
`States Department of Justice, however, “has
`declined to enforce [21 U.S.C.] § 841 when a
`person or company buys or sells marijuana
`in accordance with state law.”
`
`Sandusky v. Goetz, 944 F.3d 1240, 1242 (10th Cir.
`2019), quoting, Green Sol. Retail, Inc. v. U.S., 855 F.3d
`1111, 1113 14 (10th Cir. 2017)
`
`In commercial litigation, courts have alluded to
`the nullification crisis, but declined to address it
`head. In Mann v. Gullickson, the District Court upheld
`contractual payment obligations of a cannabis busi
`ness purchaser since the transaction could be accomp
`lished without violating the CSA. 2016 WL 6473215
`at *7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2016). Likewise, in Energy
`Labs, Inc. v. Edwards Engineering, Inc., the District
`Court required defendants to follow through with the
`purchase of air conditioning units to be specifically
`
`

`

`14
`
`used for a cannabis cultivation because fulfilling that
`obligation was not a violation of the CSA. 2015 WL
`3504974 at *4 (N.D. Ill. 2015). Similarly, in Ginsburg
`v. ICC Holdings, LLC, the District Court upheld
`Defendant’s obligations to pay sums certain due on
`promissory notes related to the acquisition of a
`cannabis business because the payments under the
`notes were not derived from the profits of the cannabis
`business. 2017 WL 5467688 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 13,
`2017).
`
`Regarding insurance, the District Court in Green
`Earth Wellness Ctr., LLC v. Atain Specialty Ins. Co.,
`dismissed an insurer’s argument that it had no obli
`gation to pay damage claims related to the insured’s
`cannabis business because the contract was void as a

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket