The U.S. Supreme Court has approved a 60-day extension for marijuana companies challenging federal cannabis prohibition, signaling potential interest in a case that could reshape cannabis law nationwide. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson granted the extension last Friday, on August 15, 2025, giving cannabis businesses until October 24 to file their petition for Supreme Court review.
The case, Canna Provisions v. Bondi, is one of the most significant legal challenges to federal marijuana prohibition since the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Gonzales v. Raich.
Four cannabis companies—Canna Provisions, Gyasi Sellers, Wiseacre Farm, and Verano Holdings—are asking the nation’s highest court to reconsider whether Congress has constitutional authority to criminalize marijuana activities that occur entirely within state borders.
Constitutional Challenge to End Federal Cannabis Prohibition Takes Shape
The companies operate legally under Massachusetts law but face federal criminalization under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Their lawsuit argues that Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause authority when it banned intrastate marijuana commerce, particularly given the dramatic changes in state regulation and federal enforcement since Raich was decided twenty years ago.
David Boies, the attorney representing the cannabis companies, requested the extension citing the “significant and complex constitutional issues” involved in the case. The filing also noted that law professors, nonprofits, and state governments have expressed interest in filing supporting briefs but need additional time to prepare their arguments.
The extension request revealed growing support for the constitutional challenge. The Office of the Solicitor General did not oppose the extension, and multiple potential amici have indicated plans to support the cannabis companies’ position when the case reaches the Supreme Court.
Challenging Two Decades of Precedent
The heart of the legal challenge centers on whether Gonzales v. Raich remains valid given fundamental changes in marijuana regulation since 2005.
In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Congress could criminalize California’s medical marijuana program under the Commerce Clause, even though the cannabis never crossed state lines.
The cannabis companies argue that Raich‘s reasoning no longer applies because Congress has effectively abandoned comprehensive marijuana prohibition. They point to annual congressional appropriations riders since 2014 that prevent federal enforcement against state-legal medical marijuana programs, as well as permission for Washington D.C. and territories to legalize cannabis.
The companies’ constitutional argument focuses on three key changes since Raich:
Federal Policy Shifts: Congress has consistently prohibited Justice Department funding for enforcement against state medical marijuana programs through the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment and similar provisions.
Market Evolution: Thirty-eight states now operate regulated cannabis markets with tracking systems that distinguish state-legal products from illegal interstate trafficking.
Enforcement Reality: Federal prosecutors have largely avoided targeting state-compliant cannabis businesses, undermining the enforcement scheme that justified Raich.
Economic Harms Drive Standing Arguments
The cannabis companies demonstrated constitutional standing by detailing concrete economic injuries caused by federal prohibition. Despite operating legally under state law, these businesses face systematic discrimination from financial institutions, insurance companies, and other service providers who fear federal enforcement.
Canna Provisions reported that losing credit card processing capabilities reduced average customer purchases by approximately 30%. The company also struggles to access basic business services like banking, payroll processing, and insurance at reasonable rates.
Gyasi Sellers, who operates a state-licensed delivery service, faces security risks because customers cannot prepay for orders online. His drivers must collect cash payments directly from customers, creating safety concerns and operational inefficiencies.
Wiseacre Farm has been unable to lease additional farmland because federal agricultural subsidies would be jeopardized if marijuana were grown on the property. The outdoor cultivation facility also pays premium rates for banking and insurance services.
Verano Holdings, a multi-state cannabis operator, experiences similar challenges across its Massachusetts operations, including elevated insurance premiums and limited access to business services.
Lower Courts Bound by Precedent
Both the federal district court and First Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged the strength of the companies’ arguments while ruling against them based on binding Supreme Court precedent.
District Judge Mark Mastroianni wrote that while the complaint contained “persuasive reasons for a reexamination of the way the Controlled Substances Act regulates marijuana,” the relief sought was “inconsistent with binding Supreme Court precedent.”
The First Circuit similarly found itself constrained by Raich, ruling that Congress retains rational basis authority to regulate intrastate marijuana commerce.
The appellate court noted that the companies sought a much broader exemption than the personal medical use at issue in Raich, involving commercial cultivation, manufacturing, and distribution for both medical and adult use.
Chief Judge David Barron, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, emphasized that only the Supreme Court could overrule its own precedent: “We thus do not see how we could conclude that Congress has no rational basis for similarly concluding as to the much larger exemption sought here.”
Due Process Claims Also Rejected
Beyond their Commerce Clause challenge, the cannabis companies argued that federal prohibition violates substantive due process by infringing their fundamental right to engage in state-regulated marijuana commerce.
They claimed this right was “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and legal traditions,” pointing to colonial-era hemp cultivation requirements and widespread medical marijuana use in the 19th century.
The courts rejected this argument. Every federal appellate court to consider similar due process claims has found no fundamental right to cultivate, manufacture, or distribute marijuana.
The First Circuit noted that the companies’ historical evidence would support “sweeping claims of fundamental rights” for any product that founding-era laws encouraged colonists to grow.
The court also dismissed arguments that recent state legalization trends create constitutional protection, writing: “We know of no authority that supports the proposition that an activity not otherwise protected as a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause may become so protected solely because many states have in recent times provided legislative protections for that activity.”
Supreme Court Interest Signals
Several factors suggest the Supreme Court may be interested in reviewing this case. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a significant statement in 2021 criticizing federal marijuana policy as “contradictory and unstable.” Thomas specifically questioned whether Raich remained viable given policy changes since 2005.
“Whatever the merits of Raich when it was decided, federal policies of the past 16 years have greatly undermined its reasoning,” Thomas wrote. He described current enforcement as “a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana” that “strains basic principles of federalism.”
The extension granted by Justice Jackson, while procedural, also suggests the Court recognizes the significance of the constitutional questions presented.
The fact that potential amici from state governments and legal scholars need additional time to prepare supporting briefs indicates broader interest in the case’s outcome.
Broader Implications for Federalism
The case presents fundamental questions about the scope of federal power under the Commerce Clause that extend beyond marijuana policy.
If the Supreme Court rules that Congress lacks authority to criminalize intrastate cannabis commerce in regulated state markets, the decision could impact federal authority in other areas where states have created regulatory schemes.
The cannabis companies argue that modern federalism requires respecting state sovereignty when local regulation effectively displaces the need for federal control.
They contend that sophisticated state tracking systems and rigorous licensing requirements eliminate the enforcement concerns that justified federal intervention in Raich.
Path Forward for the Federal Challenge to Cannabis Prohibition
The cannabis companies now have until October 24 to file their petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The petition will need to convince four justices that the case warrants review, a threshold known as the “rule of four.”
Given Justice Thomas’s previous statements and the constitutional significance of the issues presented, the case appears to have reasonable prospects for Supreme Court review.
The involvement of state governments and academic experts as potential amici also suggests broader support for reconsidering federal marijuana prohibition.
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, oral arguments would likely occur during the 2025-26 term, with a decision expected by summer 2026.
A ruling favoring the cannabis companies could effectively end federal prohibition for state-legal marijuana businesses, fundamentally reshaping American drug policy.
