U.S. Appeals Court Upholds Federal Ban on Marijuana Despite State Legalization

29 May 2025

The appeals court ruled that the federal ban on marijuana is not unconstitutional. PHOTO: AFP

In a pivotal decision reinforcing federal authority over drug policy, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston on May 27, 2025, upheld the longstanding federal ban on marijuana. This ruling comes despite the widespread legalization and normalization of cannabis across the United States, particularly in states like Massachusetts, where it is legally sold and regulated. The court’s decision rejected a lawsuit brought by several Massachusetts-based marijuana companies that challenged the federal prohibition as outdated and unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs Canna Provisions Inc., Wiseacre Farm, and Verano Holdings argued that the federal ban on cannabis, as enforced under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), is in direct conflict with modern societal and legislative realities. They pointed out that marijuana is now legal in 38 U.S. states in some form, whether for medical or recreational use. Moreover, the plaintiffs emphasized that Congress itself has limited the Department of Justice’s authority to interfere with state-level medical marijuana laws through legislation like the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, passed annually since 2014.

Their legal challenge focused on the impact of federal restrictions on their ability to operate and expand their businesses. These companies contend that the federal designation of marijuana as a Schedule I drug severely hampers access to banking, restricts interstate commerce, and leaves businesses vulnerable to prosecution, even when operating legally within state borders. However, the appellate court did not find these arguments compelling enough to overturn precedent.

Writing for the panel, Chief Judge David Barron referred extensively to the landmark 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales v. Raich. That decision upheld Congress’s authority to regulate, even criminalize marijuana under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, regardless of state laws. Judge Barron reiterated that unless Congress explicitly changes the law, the federal government retains the power to enforce the CSA across all U.S. jurisdictions.

The court also acknowledged the evolving political and legislative landscape, where marijuana reform has gained considerable momentum. Still, Judge Barron stressed that the judiciary is bound to follow existing legal precedent unless overruled by the Supreme Court or Congress. “While the policy landscape may have changed, the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court has not,” he wrote.

The decision delivers a blow to cannabis reform advocates who hoped the courts would take a more progressive stance reflecting recent trends. It also places renewed pressure on Congress to act if federal and state laws are to be reconciled. Advocacy groups and marijuana industry leaders argue that maintaining marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I substance alongside heroin and LSD is scientifically and socially indefensible.

Following the court’s rejection, the plaintiffs have announced their intent to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Should the high court agree to hear the case, it could spark one of the most significant legal showdowns over marijuana regulation in decades, potentially reshaping the national legal framework for cannabis.

This case underscores the ongoing legal gray area in which cannabis businesses must operate. While state laws may allow the cultivation, sale, and consumption of marijuana, federal law continues to treat it as illegal making compliance a legal tightrope for entrepreneurs and financial institutions alike.

As public support for marijuana legalization grows and more states join the ranks of those permitting its use, the disconnect between state and federal policy becomes increasingly unsustainable. Until Congress updates the Controlled Substances Act or the Supreme Court reconsiders Raich, marijuana businesses will continue to face a legal minefield, navigating dual systems that send mixed messages about the legitimacy of their operations.

For now, the court’s decision reaffirms the strength of federal supremacy in drug policy even in a rapidly changing national landscape.