Marijuana Moment
The odds are always against the Supreme Court hearing any particular case, but the cannabis industry’s approach in this one absolutely ensures it won’t happen.”
By James B. Mann, former U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division deputy assistant attorney general
A much-hyped lawsuit meant to challenge federal cannabis law has officially flamed out. The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a unanimous opinion rejecting Canna Provisions v. Garland (also known as Canna Provisions v. Bondi), a case widely seen as the cannabis industry’s best shot at attacking federal prohibition through the courts.
The case was intended to strike down cannabis’s Schedule I classification under the Controlled Substances Act and eliminate the crushing tax burden imposed by Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code. Instead, it ended in a resounding defeat—with precisely zero chance of being heard by the Supreme Court.
Section 280E is one of the most punishing burdens facing the legal cannabis industry. Originally enacted in the 1980s to prevent drug traffickers from deducting business expenses, 280E blocks cannabis operators—even fully legal ones under state law—from writing off ordinary costs like rent, payroll or equipment. The result is that cannabis businesses often pay two to three times more in federal income tax than they would if they sold any other legal product.
The cannabis industry’s battle against 280E is now being waged across all three branches of government. Congress is being lobbied for legislative relief. The executive branch is being pressured to reschedule cannabis so 280E no longer applies. And the judiciary has been pulled in through legal challenges like Canna Provisions.
The lawsuit was filed with much fanfare in October 2023—it was funded by many of the large cannabis companies and used a big-name law firm, Boies Schiller. The goal was to overturn a 2005 Supreme Court decision, Gonzales v. Raich. In Raich, the Court upheld the Controlled Substances Act as applied to cannabis grown solely for personal medical use within one state.
Boies Schiller essentially made two arguments—first, that the realities of the cannabis market had changed so much since 2005 that Raich was outdated and wrong, and second, that Congress had passed legislation proving cannabis no longer belongs in Schedule I. The First Circuit wasn’t having any of it. The 3-0 opinion pointed out that even though the facts had changed, they had not changed enough to make Congress’s classification irrational as part of a comprehensive regime of drug regulation (the relevant test).
Read full op ed at
