Canna Provisions v. Garland, a potential U.S. Supreme Court case, could affect patients who use medical cannabis.
What Is Canna Provisions v. Garland About?
Cannabis companies are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if it's still appropriate for the federal government to enforce prohibition against state legal cannabis activity.
The proponents seek to overturn a 2005 precedent set by Gonzales v. Raich. Raich confirmed that the feds had the right to enforce against purely intrastate activity because it affects interstate commerce as a whole.
Canna Provisions is arguing that federal prohibition shouldn't apply to state-legal cannabis that doesn't cross state lines, and that the feds should take a hands-off approach to products that are grown, sold, and used only inside each state.
Why Is Raich Important To Cannabis Patients?
Raich v. Gonzales involved a woman in California who used medical cannabis legally under state law, but still became a target for federal enforcement.
The Supreme Court ruled that even cannabis used at home legally under state law was subject to federal enforcement. They said the feds could enforce prohibition because if everyone did it, it could affect the interstate market, too.
This decision gave federal enforcers broad power over state-legal cannabis. Now, 20 years and 39 medically-legal states later, Canna Provisions believes it's time to re-examine this logic.
Will The Supreme Court Take The Case?
Right now, the Court is only deciding whether to hear the case. If they do decide to hear it, it will take several months to a couple of years to play out.
The Court takes only a small number of cases each year. While this court is known for its dramatic decisions, such as overturning Chevron deference, there are many reasons for it to punt on this one. It involves major questions about federal and state powers. SCOTUS may want to avoid the wide-ranging effects of changing Raich.
How Canna Provisions v. Garland Might Affect Patients
If the Court rules that the federal government can't enforce prohibition against state-legal cannabis, it could be a big win for patients:
- Patients in legal states could have more protection from federal enforcement.
- Doctors and researchers will be more comfortable recommending and studying cannabis.
- States could customize their medical programs with less fear of federal pushback.
This wouldn't equate to full federal legalization. Some states with looser regulations would still face legal questions, and each state’s program would still need to be well-regulated to get protection. Also, Congress or regulators could change the rules later.
So winning this case wouldn't bring about regulatory certainty, but it would still provide new protections for patients and businesses.
Bottom Line For Patients
This case is important because it could change the legal status of medical cannabis in the U.S., but nothing has changed yet.
Patients should:
- Keep following state laws and their medical provider’s advice.
- Stay informed about updates to federal cannabis law.
- Talk with care providers about how legal changes could affect their treatment plans.
Keep up with your state's cannabis laws and regulations, and sign up for NuggMD's Weekly Sesh newsletter for consumer stories, tips, and analyses on how changing regulations and resources may impact patients.
The information in this article and any included images or charts are for educational purposes only. This information is neither a substitute for, nor does it replace, professional legal advice or medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. If you have any concerns or questions about laws, regulations, or your health, you should always consult with an attorney, physician or other licensed professional.
