Federal Law Vs State Law: Marijuana Legalization Battle

Marijuana legalization has been a contentious issue in the United States, with a growing number of states embracing its use for medical and recreational purposes. Despite this, marijuana remains a Schedule I Drug under federal law, creating a complex legal landscape. This conflict between state and federal laws has led to uncertainty and confusion, particularly for businesses operating in the cannabis industry. While federal law takes precedence according to the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, it does not always supersede state laws. The Tenth Amendment limits federal preemption of state laws, and the federal government cannot compel state officers to enforce federal statutes. This has resulted in a situation where states have been able to chart their own paths, with varying degrees of legalization and regulation. As public support for legalization grows, the future of marijuana policy in the US remains uncertain, with potential legislative action on the horizon.

The Supremacy Clause

The US Supreme Court has established Congress's constitutional authority to enact federal prohibition on marijuana. However, principles of federalism prevent the federal government from mandating that states actively support or participate in enforcing federal marijuana laws. The Tenth Amendment limits what state laws can be federally preempted and prevents Congress from forcing states to mirror or enforce federal policies. While the federal government can enforce its own marijuana laws, requiring state agents to do so is considered unconstitutional commandeering of a state's resources.

Courts have generally held that a state law is only preempted by the CSA if it is "physically impossible" to comply with both state and federal law, or if the state law stands as an obstacle to the CSA. This is not the case with carefully crafted state medical marijuana programs, which regulate private individuals who choose to grow or dispense marijuana.

While the federal government has not changed its laws regarding marijuana, several states have legalized its possession, manufacture, and sale. The Department of Justice's 2013 Cole Memo formalized a policy of non-interference with state-legal marijuana providers unless a specific federal interest is implicated. This policy has continued in practice even after the memo was rescinded in 2018.

State sovereignty

The Tenth Amendment limits what state laws can be federally preempted. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Tenth Amendment to mean that certain "core" state functions are beyond the authority of the federal government to regulate. For example, in National League of Cities v. Usery, the Court struck down federal wage and price controls on state employees as an overreach of federal power.

The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution states that federal law is the "supreme Law of the Land." This clause includes the doctrine of "preemption," which means that in many (but not all) cases of conflicting laws, federal law supersedes state law. However, in the context of marijuana regulation, the federal government has never alleged in court that federal laws take precedence over state laws. The CSA, which makes marijuana possession and distribution federal crimes, only preempts state laws under very limited circumstances. For instance, a state law would be preempted if it required someone to violate federal law, but effective cannabis laws only regulate private individuals who choose to grow or dispense marijuana.

While the federal government has not changed its stance on marijuana, many states have legalized its use, and the Department of Justice has not targeted state-legal marijuana providers in over a decade. This policy of non-interference was formalized in the 2013 Cole Memo, which clarified that states in which cannabis is legal are responsible for establishing strict regulatory systems. This memo was rescinded in 2018, but the non-enforcement practice has continued.

In conclusion, while federal law does supersede state law in certain cases, the US system of federalism and state sovereignty means that states have significant autonomy in legalizing and regulating marijuana use. The Tenth Amendment and Supreme Court interpretations thereof provide further protection for state sovereignty.

Federal enforcement

The United States' complex legal landscape regarding marijuana presents a challenging scenario, where federal and state laws often conflict. This situation arises from the federal government's stance on marijuana, which continues to classify it as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This classification means that the federal government considers marijuana to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse, alongside other substances like heroin and LSD. Consequently, any activity involving marijuana, including its possession, cultivation, distribution, and sale, remains illegal under federal law, regardless of state-level legalization.

When it comes to federal enforcement, the primary agency responsible for enforcing federal marijuana laws is the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The DEA has the authority to investigate and prosecute individuals and organizations involved in marijuana-related activities, even if they are operating in compliance with state laws. This means that individuals and businesses who are legally participating in the marijuana industry under state regulations may still find themselves at odds with federal authorities. While the DEA has limited resources and has generally refrained from enforcing marijuana laws in states where it has been legalized, this situation creates a precarious environment, as federal enforcement actions can still occur.

One notable example of federal enforcement involved the crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries in California in 2011. The DEA conducted a series of raids, known as Operation Sweet Leaf, which resulted in the closure of hundreds of dispensaries and the seizure of substantial amounts of marijuana. The operation was based on the argument that many of these dispensaries were fronts for illegal drug trafficking and were not operating within the confines of the state's medical marijuana laws. This action demonstrated the federal government's willingness to intervene, even in states with more established legalization frameworks.

In addition to the DEA, other federal agencies can also play a role in enforcement actions. For instance, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has taken a particular interest in the tax implications of the marijuana industry. Due to the federal illegal status of marijuana, businesses operating in this sector are unable to take advantage of standard tax deductions and are often subject to higher tax rates. The IRS has been known to audit marijuana businesses and enforce strict compliance with tax regulations, sometimes resulting in significant financial burdens for these companies.

Furthermore, federal laws and policies can impact the ability of state-legal marijuana businesses to access financial services. The Cole Memorandum, issued during the Obama administration, provided some guidance for financial institutions working with marijuana businesses, suggesting that they would not be prioritized for federal enforcement as long as they adhered to certain conditions. However, this memorandum was rescinded by the Trump administration, creating further uncertainty in the industry. This action led to many financial institutions becoming hesitant to work with marijuana businesses, as they fear running afoul of federal money laundering and other financial laws.

The potential for federal enforcement actions creates a challenging and uncertain environment for individuals and businesses operating in the state-legal marijuana industry. While the pace of reform at the state level has been rapid, the conflict with federal law remains a significant obstacle. Ultimately, comprehensive federal legislation is needed to resolve this issue and provide a clear and consistent legal framework for marijuana regulation across the country. Until then, those involved in the marijuana industry must navigate a complex and sometimes contradictory legal landscape.

State medical marijuana programs

In the United States, the use of cannabis for medical purposes is allowed in 47 states, the District of Columbia, and 3 territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). Of these, 38 states, the District of Columbia, and 3 territories allow for the use of cannabis for medical purposes through comprehensive programs. 14 states and 2 territories have a comprehensive medical-only program, while 9 states have medical programs that only allow the use of CBD/low-THC products for qualifying medical conditions as defined by the state.

Despite the fact that marijuana is classified as a Schedule I Drug under federal law, treated as one of the most serious and deadly drugs, and possession and distribution are federal crimes under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the federal government has never alleged in court that federal laws preempt state medical marijuana or legalization and regulation laws. The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued in favor of dismissing a lawsuit claiming Arizona's medical marijuana law was preempted, and the suit was dismissed. The federal government has not stopped states from charting their own paths, and at least 41 states have legalized the possession, manufacture, and sale of at least some cannabis products that are federally illegal. The Department of Justice has not targeted state-legal marijuana providers in over a decade. This policy of non-interference was formalized in the Department of Justice's 2013 Cole Memo. While the memo was rescinded by then-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in 2018, the non-enforcement practice continued for the remainder of Trump's term and under the Biden Administration.

The area of law that addresses possible conflict between state and federal laws is generally referred to as the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, a key provision appearing in article VI.4. Within the Supremacy Clause is the doctrine of "preemption" which states that in many (but not all) cases of conflicting laws, federal supersedes state law. However, the U.S. system of government is one of dual sovereignty, and Congress never intended to preempt state drug laws. The Tenth Amendment prevents Congress from forcing states to mirror or enforce federal policies, and requiring state agents to enforce federal laws is unconstitutional commandeering of a state's resources. While federal law creates challenges and injustices, it does not stand in the way of states' legalization for adults' or medical use.

Business law complications

The legal status of marijuana in the US is complex, with a conflict between federal and state laws. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug under federal law, treated as one of the most serious and deadly drugs. However, many states have legalized marijuana for medicinal or recreational use, creating a situation where individuals and businesses can comply with state law while violating federal law. This has resulted in business law complications, particularly for lawyers advising clients in the cannabis industry.

One significant complication is the challenge of accessing financial services for cannabis-related businesses. Despite the increasing number of states legalizing marijuana, some banks and financial institutions remain hesitant to provide accounts and services to these businesses due to the risk of violating federal laws, such as the Controlled Substances Act and the Bank Secrecy Act. This has resulted in limited access to banking services and potential issues with money laundering regulations.

Another complication arises from the production, transportation, and sale of cannabis products. While state laws may permit these activities, businesses must navigate the conflicting federal laws, which can impact their ability to operate across state lines or collaborate with suppliers and distributors. The regulatory landscape varies across states, and businesses must ensure compliance with multiple sets of regulations, licensing requirements, and taxation frameworks.

Additionally, the evolving nature of marijuana legalization adds complexity for businesses and their legal advisors. As more states legalize marijuana, the regulatory environment is constantly changing, making it challenging for businesses to keep up with the latest requirements and best practices. Lawyers advising clients in the cannabis industry must stay abreast of the ever-changing rules and regulations across multiple jurisdictions to provide accurate and ethical guidance.

To summarize, the conflict between federal and state laws regarding marijuana has created significant business law complications. These complications encompass various aspects of business operations, including banking, financing, production, transportation, and sales. Lawyers advising clients in the cannabis industry must navigate complex and often conflicting legal frameworks, making it essential for them to stay updated with the latest developments in marijuana legalization and regulation.

Frequently asked questions