A coalition of marijuana companies has filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up their case challenging the constitutionality of federal prohibition.

About two months after the court accepted an application for an extend the filing deadline, the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP that’s representing the companies submitted the petition for writ of certiorari on Friday.

The case from Massachusetts-based marijuana companies and industry leaders—Canna Provisions, Gyasi Sellers, Wiseacre Farm and Verano Holdings–argues that the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution precludes the federal government from enforcing criminalization laws against intrastate cannabis activity.

To that end, they want justices to reevaluate a landmark 2005 case, Gonzales v. Raich, wherein the Supreme Court narrowly determined that the federal government could enforce prohibition against cannabis cultivation that took place wholly within California based on Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce.

The new Supreme Court petition argues that the Raich decision was “an aberration” in the court’s precedents on the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause, and represents “a drastic departure from the federalism principles those clauses embody.”

The ruling two decades ago permitted a “dramatic intrusion on the exercise of the States’ police powers,” it says.

The Controlled Substances Act’s (CSA) “significance to the exercise of the States’ police powers is massive and even greater today than it was in Raich’s time, when only nine states had legalized marijuana,” the petition says. “Thirty-eight states have now decided that the health and safety of their citizens is better served by making marijuana available through regulated channels than through prohibition. The CSA displaces those states’ choices and imposes Congress’s own views on intrastate policy. The serious federalism questions raised by that intrusion warrant the Court’s attention now, as they did in Raich.”

The petition says that after the Raich decision was issued, the federal government has “undermined the notion of any link between the CSA’s interstate goals and its intrastate prohibitions.”

“Since 2014, Congress has barred enforcement against state-regulated medical marijuana but not adult-use marijuana (while leaving both prohibited under the CSA). State-regulated medical marijuana is therefore less regulated, from a federal perspective, than the least-controlled Schedule V substances in the CSA. The DOJ has taken non-enforcement even further, with a policy of not enforcing the CSA as to either state-regulated medical or adult-use marijuana… This long period of desuetude has severed any link between controlling state-regulated marijuana and regulating interstate commerce, thereby rendering the CSA’s intrusion on the States’ policymaking even more stark.”

A U.S. appeals court rejected the arguments of the state-legal cannabis companies in May. It was one the latest blows to the high-profile lawsuit following a lower court’s dismissal of the claims. But it’s widely understood that the plaintiffs’ legal team has long intended the matter to end up before the nine high court justices.

Four justices must vote to accept the petition for cert in order for the court to take up the case.

While it remains to be seen whether SCOTUS will ultimately take the case, one sign that at least some on court might be interested in the appeal is a 2021 statement from Justice Clarence Thomas, issued as the court denied review of a separate dispute involving a Colorado medical marijuana dispensary.

Thomas’s comments at the time seemed to suggest it’d be appropriate revisit Raich—a move that could upend federal prohibition.

The statement pointed to policy developments since the earlier case was decided, such as the hands-off enforcement approach taken by the Department of Justice as more states legalized cannabis and a congressional budget rider protecting state-legal medical marijuana programs.

“Whatever the merits of Raich when it was decided, federal policies of the past 16 years have greatly undermined its reasoning,” Thomas wrote, describing the government’s approach to cannabis enforcement as “a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana.”

“Though federal law still flatly forbids the intrastate possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana…the Government, post-Raich, has sent mixed signals on its views,” the justice continued, saying the situation “strains basic principles of federalism and conceals traps for the unwary.”

The initial complaint in the current case now known as Canna Provisions v. Bondi, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, argued that government’s ongoing prohibition on marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was unconstitutional because Congress in recent decades had “dropped any assumption that federal control of state-regulated marijuana is necessary.”

At oral argument on appeal late last year, David Boies told judges that under the Constitution, Congress can only regulate commercial activity within a state—in this case, around marijuana—if the failure to regulate that in-state activity “would substantially interfere [with] or undermine legitimate congressional regulation of interstate commerce.”

Boies, chairman of the firm, has a long list of prior clients that includes the Justice Department, former Vice President Al Gore and the plaintiffs in a case that led to the invalidation of California’s ban on same-sex marriage, among others.

Judges, however, said they were “unpersuaded,” ruling in an opinion that “the CSA remains fully intact as to the regulation of the commercial activity involving marijuana for non-medical purposes, which is the activity in which the appellants, by their own account, are engaged.”

The district court, meanwhile, said in the case that while the there are “persuasive reasons for a reexamination” of the current scheduling of cannabis, its hands were effectively tied by past U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Raich.

This comes in the background of a pending marijuana rescheduling decision from the Trump administration. President Donald Trump said in late August that he’d make a determination about moving cannabis to Schedule III of the CSA within weeks, but he’s yet to act.

Meanwhile, this week the Supreme Court agreed to hear a separate case on the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting people who use marijuana or other drugs from buying or possessing firearms. The Trump administration has argued that the policy “targets a category of persons who pose a clear danger of misusing firearm” and should be upheld.

Read the Supreme Court petition below:

The Odds Of The Feds Making A 2025 Cannabis Change explored through politics, markets, and investor predictions.

As the races toward the finish line, investors, policy wonks and marijuana consumers are asking the same question: what are the odds of the Feds making a 2025 cannabis change? Short answer: possible, but far from certain — prediction markets and recent signals put the odds in the low-double digits, while loud political and legislative headwinds keep the outcome uncertain.

RELATED: The Connection Between Country Music And Cannabis

Two dynamics are driving optimism. First, signals from the executive branch — including public comments from White House-adjacent figures and renewed attention from the administration — have signaled openness to reform, keeping the rescheduling conversation alive. Second, high-profile statements and advocacy (and even polling) have pushed cannabis onto the political agenda, prompting some lawmakers and officials to call for a clearer federal framework.

But the path to action is narrow. Key congressional players have moved to constrain agency flexibility: the House Appropriations Committee has advanced language aimed at blocking Department of Justice funding for reclassifying marijuana, a direct check on executive action. That kind of legislative resistance reduces the chance the DEA or DOJ can unilaterally reschedule this year.

The DEA’s own process and timing add more friction. Rescheduling entails administrative reviews, hearings and legal steps typically take months — and while the agency has periodically updated stakeholders, there’s no guarantee a final rule can be completed and implemented before year-end.

RELATED: The VFW Stands Up For Marijuana

Equities and cannabis ETFs have been volatile in response to policy chatter. Major pot names — Tilray, Canopy Growth, Cronos and others — have seen price swings tied to headlines, earnings and policy signals; some firms even reported notable gains after pro-reform statements and positive quarterly results. Market trackers and analysts continue to flag these stocks as sector plays to watch, but caution regulatory uncertainty keeps valuations jittery.

Combine a roughly 18% market-implied chance, vocal White House signals and strong investor interest, but also legislative pushback and a slow administrative process, and the most realistic forecast is modest odds of federal movement before December 31. In plain terms: meaningful federal change this year is possible — not impossible — but bettors and investors should expect bumps, delays and political counter-moves rather than a clean, guaranteed policy win.

As bicameral lawmakers work to reach a deal on provisions for federal spending legislation, including how to settle an increasingly contentious debate about hemp products, competing interests are making their voices heard on how they think Congress should handle the issue.

To that end, a GOP senator is hoping to replace a proposed ban on hemp THC products with alternate language mandating a study into state regulatory models for consumable cannabinoids, while a group of state attorneys general are taking steps to urge Republican leadership to move ahead with an outright prohibition on intoxicating products.

While the House has not yet passed its version of the agriculture spending bill, the Senate version was combined into a so-called minibus with appropriations legislation that also covers defense and the legislative branch. Last month, House leadership requested a conference committee and appointed negotiators, despite not having advanced its own companion bill through the chamber.

The Senate hasn’t appointed its conferees, and no formal meetings have taken place so far, but it’s reported that appropriators have been informally discussing relevant issues. And one GOP senator is angling to get ahead of the negotiations around hemp.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)—a longstanding champion of cannabis reform who previously blocked a hemp ban from being included in an agriculture appropriations bill passed by the Senate earlier this year—is circulating legislative language, obtained by Marijuana Moment, that he’s asking to be adopted as part of the final package.

It would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to study “best practices” for regulating intoxicating cannabinoid products and submit a report on its findings to Congress.

Here’s the full language: 

“SEC.____. STUDY ON HEMP BEST PRACTICES.

Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with States, shall conduct, and submit to Congress a report on the results of, a study on best practices of States relating to regulation of hemp-derived products for home and personal use.”

Marijuana Moment reached out to Paul’s office for comment, but a representative was not immediately available.

The agriculture appropriations measure the Senate passed as part of a package over the summer initially contained provisions hemp industry stakeholders said would effectively eradicate the market by banning consumable hemp products with any “quantifiable” amount of THC. But after the measure came out of committee, Paul threatened to hold up its passage over the issue, and the language was removed.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who ushered in the federal legalization of hemp under the 2018 Farm Bill, championed the THC criminalization language and took to the floor to criticize those who opposed the ban, including Paul.

McConnell isn’t the only one vying for a renewed prohibition. A group of state attorneys general is circulating a draft letter addressed to GOP leaders in the House and Senate Appropriations and Agriculture committees that calls for the inclusion of the ban because, they say, the currently Farm Bill “wrongly exploited by bad actors to sell recreational synthetic THC products across the country.”

—
Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—

The draft document omits the names of the signatories, but the content cites data from Indiana—and the Republican state attorney general there, Todd Rokita, previously led a separate letter with 20 of his counterparts from other states urging Congress to take action on intoxicating cannabinoid products.

“We ask that Congress clarify the federal definition of hemp during the Fiscal Year 2026 appropriations process or through the reauthorization of the Farm Bill to leave no doubt that these harmful products are illegal and that their sale and manufacture are criminal acts,” the new draft letter, obtained by Marijuana Moment, says.

Hemp industry stakeholders “have nefariously misinterpreted the Farm Bill’s legalization of low concentrations of hemp-derived delta-9 and the Bill’s silence regarding hemp-derived THC products other than delta-9 to claim that the Farm Bill allows them to produce and sell various synthetic cannabinoids regardless of the chemicals’ potency and psychoactive effects,” it says. “In this way, legal, nonintoxicating hemp is used to make Frankenstein THC products that get adults high and harm and even kill children.”

“We commend your commitment to American farmers and your work to create an orderly and well-regulated market for industrial hemp and non-intoxicating hemp-derived products. You should not allow irresponsible corporations to take advantage of your good work to purvey dangerous products in our States. We ask Congress to act decisively to clarify the Farm Bill’s definition of hemp to ensure intoxicating THC products are taken off the market.”

Rokita’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Marijuana Moment.

The House agriculture spending bill, as approved by the Appropriations Committee, included provisions banning consumable hemp products with any “quantifiable” amount of THC, though it has not been taken up on the floor.

Hemp stakeholders are unsure where the issue will land as lawmakers attempt to finalize appropriations legislation, but they’re calling on supporters to contact their representatives and make their opposition to a blanket ban clear.

“The truth is that no one really knows what any final draft would look like, and it is equally uncertain as to whether a minibus itself will see the light of day,” the U.S. Hemp Roundtable said in an email blast.

“If you have not yet alerted your customers, associates, friends and social media contacts that the prospects of a hemp ban are real, NOW IS THE TIME,” it says. “We have an opportunity to kill this, but we are running out of time.”

Meanwhile, Paul recently filed a standalone bill that would go in the opposite direction of the hemp ban, proposing to triple the concentration of THC that the crop could legally contain, while addressing multiple other concerns the industry has expressed about federal regulations.

The senator introduced the legislation, titled the Hemp Economic Mobilization Plan (HEMP) Act, in June. It mirrors versions he’s sponsored over the last several sessions.

Read the text of the state attorneys general draft letter on hemp below: 

Photo courtesy of Brendan Cleak.