The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by a Maine resident who sought clarification of the limits of federal law protecting state-legal medical cannabis activity from federal prosecution.
After discussing the matter late last week, justices on Monday denied the petition from lawyers for Lucas Sirois, who had asserted that the amendment—which has been enacted into federal law via spending bills since late 2014—should prevent the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors from pursuing their case against him.
Sirois’ petition claims that he was indicted by the DOJ for “a laundry” list of violations stemming his licensed business of providing medical marijuana. Since his arrest, he’s protested that the prosecution is violation of the so-called Rohrabacher–Farr rider, named after the lawmakers who sponsored it, which prevents DOJ from spending money “to prevent [states with legal medical marijuana] They are not allowed to implement their own legislation that allows the distribution, cultivation, possession or use of medical marijuana.”
Sirois’s attorneys argued in the Supreme Court petition that was filed in February “that government actions in this matter violate Rohrabacher Farr and result in DOJ spending money not appropriated to Congress.” The DOJ actions are invalid, and therefore the Court of Appeals of the First Circuit should be overturned.
In the petition, it was noted that First Circuit and Ninth Circuit court opinions on marijuana budget riders are currently divided. These types of conflicts increase the probability that the Supreme Court is going to weigh in.
The petition stated that “this case provides an opportunity for Court to resolve circuit splits and provide a definitive interpretative of Congress’s words,” and that the justices could “settle the substantial uncertainties that exist related to protections provided to medical marijuana patients and distributors, growers, regulators and cultivators pursuant to Rohrabacher and Farr amendment.”
There is no response from the lawyers representing the federal government to the Supreme Court petition. Early in March they gave up their right to reply to the Supreme Court appeal.
U.S. Court of Appeals For the First Circuit has previously ruled in Sirois’s favor. That ruling is still valid following the High Court decision to not hear the case.
According to Sirois’s petition, he obtained a Maine medical marijuana caregiver licence in 2010. He then purchased a historic building in Farmington and converted it into a cannabis growing facility. Sirois obtained a medical marijuana caregiver license in Maine in 2010 and later acquired a historical building in Farmington that he converted into a cannabis cultivation facility, according to his petition.
The DOJ opened an investigation in 2018 after a suspect mentioned Sirois’s “extremely large grow operation” to a different investigation. In 2020, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) raided the facility, with an agent claiming in his application for a search warrant that the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment “does not apply [because] Members of the conspiracy are involved in trafficking both cocaine and marijuana.”
However, despite no evidence that cocaine was involved, it is claimed in the petition, federal charges have been filed “related to the cultivation and distribution marijuana under the CSA.”
Despite Sirois raising the Rohrabacher–Farr defense, the trial court ruled against him, concluding that a “reasonable mind” might agree that DOJ’s investigation of him was warranted because of his apparent noncompliance with a 2011 state law prohibiting medical marijuana “collectives.” Sirois contended that his conduct did not fit the “technical definition” of collectives, and was limited to permissible activities that were not part of any group. The court noted that regulators in the state had not found that he violated state law during the DOJ probe.
Sirois appealed to the First Circuit which ultimately sided with government, confirming the District Court ruling.
In its opinion, the First Circuit said that “the party seeking an injunction pursuant to the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment bears the burden of demonstrating that the challenged DOJ action would ‘prevent a state from giving practical effect to its medical marijuana laws.'” The First Circuit also stated that evidence presented in the case “tended” to demonstrate that Sirois operated as a collective, which was a violation of Maine’s regulations.
Sirois had told the Supreme Court the First Circuit’s ruling was based on “two crucial errors.”
The filing of his firm stated: “First, this required that the defendant prove, essentially his or her innocent, rather than making the government show its continued justifying the expenditures made for the investigation and prosecution.”
Additionally, the court “failed to define the contours of that standard or provide appreciable guidance to criminal defendants as to how to demonstrate such ‘substantial compliance,'” the petition said
Sirois’ lawyers called the outcome “not tenable,” writing in a brief: “Current participants and potential participants of Maine’s Medical Marijuana Program deserve clarity regarding what evidence must be presented to prove substantial compliance.”
The petition asked three questions. Under what circumstances could the Department of Justice conduct a criminal investigation and prosecution of an individual with a license or other authorization to possess, use, or grow medical marijuana?” The government is responsible for proving non-compliance, while the defendant has the burden of demonstrating compliance with medical marijuana laws. What is the appropriate test for demonstrating strict compliance or substantial conformity?
This case is Sirois v. U.S. Law360 reported the denial of petitions for writ certiorari.
Christine Baily, former general counsel for the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission (now MEDCAN24), wrote in an op/ed published in October that “the First Circuit ruling in this case underscores the challenges criminal defense attorneys will face when trying to convince federal district court judges they should grant an injunction” against prosecutors.
The state will be unlikely to testify about compliance despite the fact that they may have issued, renewed, reinstated or re-issued a medical marijuana license.
In December, meanwhile, a First Circuit panel heard oral arguments in a case that cuts to the heart of federal marijuana prohibition, with plaintiffs contending that the U.S. government in recent years has abandoned its attempts to rein in what it still considers a federally illegal substance, citing as evidence the Rohrabacher–Farr budget rider.
White House Has ‘No Action’ Planned On Marijuana, But Trump Quietly Pushed Lawmakers On Cannabis Banking, Report Says
Rawpixel, Philip Steffan and other photographers provided the images.