In a nation where state-legal cannabis markets flourish alongside a stubborn federal prohibition, a coalition of Cannabis Companies is pushing for a seismic shift. In October 2023, Massachusetts-based businesses, including Verano Holdings, Canna Provisions, Wiseacre Farm, and cannabis delivery courier Gyasi Sellers, filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Their argument? The CSA, which classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, is an outdated relic that unfairly burdens their operations. These Cannabis Companies, ranging from a Cannabis Supplier Company like Canna Provisions to a Cannabis Manufacturer Company like Verano, now seek Supreme Court review after a First Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upheld the federal ban in May 2025. But will the nation’s highest court take up this contentious case?

A Shifting Landscape Fuels the Fight

The disconnect between state and federal cannabis laws is stark. Over 75% of U.S. states have legalized medical marijuana, and half permit recreational use, creating a $30 billion industry employing hundreds of thousands. Yet, the CSA, enacted in 1970, places marijuana alongside heroin, deeming it a substance with no medical value and high abuse potential. This classification forces Cannabis Companies to navigate a legal minefield. They face restricted access to banking, inability to deduct business expenses under IRS Section 280E, and the constant threat of federal prosecution. For a Cannabis Supplier Company like Wiseacre Farm, these barriers stifle growth, while a Cannabis Manufacturer Company like Verano struggles with interstate commerce limitations.

The plaintiffs argue that the federal government’s hands-off approach to state markets—evidenced by Justice Department policies since 2013—undermines the CSA’s original intent to curb interstate trafficking. In 2021, Justice Clarence Thomas echoed this sentiment, critiquing the “half-in, half-out” federal stance as incoherent. He suggested the 2005 Gonzales v. Raich ruling, which upheld federal authority over intrastate cannabis under the Commerce Clause, may no longer apply. This statement has galvanized Cannabis Companies to press for Supreme Court review, hoping to resolve the legal contradiction that hampers their industry.

The Legal Journey: From District Court to SCOTUS Appeal

The Massachusetts lawsuit, filed by prominent litigator David Boies, asserted that the CSA exceeds Congress’s constitutional powers when applied to intrastate, state-legal cannabis activities. The plaintiffs, including a diverse group of Cannabis Companies, sought an injunction to shield their operations from federal enforcement. However, U.S. District Judge Mark Mastroianni dismissed the case in 2023, citing the binding precedent of Gonzales v. Raich. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision on May 27, 2025, with Chief Judge David Barron arguing that intrastate cannabis still impacts interstate markets, justifying federal oversight.

Undeterred, the Cannabis Companies, including the Cannabis Supplier Company Canna Provisions and the Cannabis Manufacturer Company Verano, plan to petition the Supreme Court. Their lawyer, Jonathan Schiller, stated, “It is fair to assume we shall seek Supreme Court review.” Legal experts are split on the outcome. Some, citing Thomas’s 2021 opinion, believe the issue is ripe for review, while others argue the Court may hesitate to overturn a 20-year-old precedent without clearer evidence of federal abandonment of enforcement. The petition’s success hinges on securing four justices’ votes to grant certiorari—a high bar given the Court’s selective docket.

The Stakes: A Game-Changer for Cannabis Companies

A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Cannabis Companies could reshape the industry. Decriminalizing intrastate cannabis at the federal level would unlock banking services, ease tax burdens, and eliminate prosecution fears for state-compliant businesses. For a Cannabis Supplier Company like Gyasi Sellers’ delivery service, this could mean seamless operations and expanded customer reach. A Cannabis Manufacturer Company like Verano could explore interstate markets, potentially creating a national cannabis framework. However, such a decision might leave regulation to states, creating a patchwork of policies that could complicate compliance for multistate operators.

Conversely, if the Court declines to hear the case or upholds the CSA, Cannabis Companies will remain in limbo. The industry’s growth could stall, particularly for smaller players unable to absorb the costs of federal restrictions. The recent reclassification of marijuana to Schedule III, proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services in 2023, offers partial relief but doesn’t resolve the core conflict. Schedule III status still subjects Cannabis Companies to federal oversight, unlike alcohol or tobacco, which face no CSA restrictions. This half-measure underscores the urgency of the Supreme Court challenge.

Historical Context: The Supreme Court’s Cannabis Legacy

The Supreme Court’s history with cannabis offers clues to its potential stance. In Gonzales v. Raich (2005), a 6-3 decision affirmed Congress’s authority to regulate homegrown medical marijuana under the Commerce Clause, citing its impact on interstate markets. Justices Thomas, O’Connor, and Rehnquist dissented, arguing for state sovereignty. In 2001, United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative rejected a medical necessity defense for marijuana distribution, reinforcing federal supremacy. These rulings contrast with public sentiment—72% of Americans supported medical marijuana in a 2004 AARP poll—and highlight the Court’s reluctance to curb federal power.

Justice Thomas’s 2021 statement marks a shift, suggesting at least one conservative justice may favor revisiting Raich. However, the Court’s current composition—six conservative and three liberal justices—makes predictions tricky. Justices like Gorsuch or Alito, who prioritize federalism, could align with Thomas, while others may uphold precedent. The Cannabis Companies’ petition must craft a compelling narrative to sway this ideologically diverse bench, emphasizing the economic and social toll of the CSA’s enforcement.

Broader Implications: Beyond the Cannabis Industry

The case’s outcome could ripple beyond Cannabis Companies. A ruling limiting federal authority under the Commerce Clause could impact other regulated industries, from firearms to healthcare. For communities disproportionately harmed by the War on Drugs, particularly people of color, a favorable decision could reduce criminal justice disparities, as noted by Harvard Law Professor Carmel Shachar. However, the Court’s recent Chevron decision, which weakened agency deference, adds uncertainty. If courts gain more power over regulations, Cannabis Companies might face inconsistent rulings, complicating compliance for a Cannabis Supplier Company or Cannabis Manufacturer Company.

The global context also looms large. The U.S. is bound by the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which mandates cannabis control. A Supreme Court decision decriminalizing intrastate marijuana could strain international obligations, prompting diplomatic pushback. Domestically, the case could galvanize Congress to pass reforms like the MORE Act, which seeks to deschedule marijuana and expunge convictions, though legislative gridlock remains a hurdle.

Will the Supreme Court Take the Plunge?

As Cannabis Companies await their day in court, the question remains: will the Supreme Court hear their plea? The justices face a delicate balance—upholding precedent versus addressing a glaring policy disconnect. For a Cannabis Supplier Company like Canna Provisions or a Cannabis Manufacturer Company like Verano, the stakes couldn’t be higher. A decision to grant review could herald a new era for the industry, while a refusal would perpetuate uncertainty. With public support for legalization at 68% per a 2021 Gallup poll and state markets thriving, the pressure is on. The Court’s choice will shape not just cannabis policy but the broader interplay of state and federal power in America’s evolving legal landscape.

Discover premium cannabis wholesale products with D Squared WorldWide! As a leading Cannabis Supplier Company, we offer top-quality CBD, Delta 9, and THCa products, including edibles, tinctures, and topicals, all lab-tested for purity and potency. Our white label program lets you customize your brand with over 250+ SKUs, while our 3PL solutions streamline operations. Enjoy bulk discounts, fast shipping, and expert support to elevate your business. Join trusted retailers thriving with D Squared WorldWide’s innovative nano-powered products. Schedule a call today to unlock exclusive deals and grow your brand

Reference:

1.      Ajmera, N., Collins, P., Weiss, H., & Luciana, M. (2021). Initiation of moderately frequent cannabis use in adolescence and young adulthood is associated with declines in verbal learning and memory: a longitudinal comparison of pre- versus post-initiation cognitive performance. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 27(6), 621-636. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355617721000631

2.      Mallinson, D., Hannah, L., & Cunningham, G. (2020). The consequences of fickle federal policy: administrative hurdles for state cannabis policies.. https://doi.org/10.33774/apsa-2020-jbzvh

Perlman, A., McLeod, H., Ventresca, E., Salinas, M., Post, P., Schuh, M., … & Dabrh, A. (2021). Medical cannabis state and federal regulations. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 96(10), 2671-2681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2021.05.005