The Supreme Court declined to take up a challenge against federal marijuana prohibition. A group of Massachusetts cannabis companies had sued, arguing the Controlled Substances Act oversteps congressional power and violates due process. The court's refusal leaves the current contradictory legal situation unchanged.
The plaintiffs received backing from libertarian groups like the Cato Institute, but the petition failed to secure the necessary votes for a hearing. A NORML lawyer noted the outcome was expected, stating that Congress, not the courts, must end the policy. The case had already been dismissed by two lower courts, which upheld the federal law's constitutionality.
This leaves the nation's patchwork drug laws intact. Federal agencies largely avoid enforcing the ban in states that have legalized cannabis, a situation some justices have criticized as unstable and confusing. The current half-in, half-out regime, as described previously, continues without judicial intervention.
The plaintiffs received backing from libertarian groups like the Cato Institute, but the petition failed to secure the necessary votes for a hearing. A NORML lawyer noted the outcome was expected, stating that Congress, not the courts, must end the policy. The case had already been dismissed by two lower courts, which upheld the federal law's constitutionality.
This leaves the nation's patchwork drug laws intact. Federal agencies largely avoid enforcing the ban in states that have legalized cannabis, a situation some justices have criticized as unstable and confusing. The current half-in, half-out regime, as described previously, continues without judicial intervention.
