With cannabis industry struggling, Western Mass. sellers and growers seek relief from high court
SPRINGFIELD – Plaintiffs growing, selling and delivering legal marijuana in Massachusetts now have two court decisions against them, but aren't giving up.
They seek to overturn a federal law they say strangles their business. They were turned back last week by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
But plaintiffs say their fight against the Richard Nixon-era Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is not over.
'It is fair to assume that we shall seek Supreme Court review,' wrote one of their attorneys, Jonathan D. Schiller of the firm Boies Schiller Flexner.
The plaintiffs include Canna Provisions, with stores in Holyoke and Lee; Wiseacre Farms, which grows cannabis in West Stockbridge; Gyasi Sellers, of Springfield, which delivers cannabis; and Verano Holdings Inc. based in Chicago. That company owns Zen Leaf Enfield, at 98 Elm St., in Enfield, Connecticut.
The plaintiffs say the 1970 law is an overreach and prevents them from making use of banking services and bankruptcy protection available to most businesses.
The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 to 8,000 petitions each term, but hears only about 80 cases.
The Boies in the firm's name is that of David Boies, who represented former U.S. Vice President Al Gore during the recount controversy against President George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election.
Boies argued in person when the case came before U.S. District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni in Springfield a year ago. The judge ruled in favor of the U.S. Department of Justice and upheld the Controlled Substances Act.
The companies appealed to the First Circuit and a three-judge panel ruled Tuesday, once again in favor of the government.
The plaintiffs declined further comment.
They sued in 2023, saying that with states legalizing cannabis for recreational use, the 1970 federal law exceeds Congressional power.
Making their argument, the companies reached back into history showing that marijuana predates the U.S. Constitution.
'Each of the thirteen original colonies enacted' laws concerning marijuana — 'then known simply as 'hemp'' — some of which 'encouraged (or even required) colonists to grow marijuana,' the suit read.
Even the Magna Carta of 1215 created rights concerning hemp cultivation and sometimes even 'made the cultivation of hemp compulsory.'
But the appeals judges were unmoved, saying that if left unregulated, the trade in marijuana within states would impact interstate commerce. And Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce.
As a practical matter, federal law makes it harder for marijuana companies to lease farm land for fear of losing federal agricultural supports or to do banking or borrow money.
The Massachusetts marijuana industry does $1 billion a year in sales, according to data kept by the Cannabis Control Commission.
Commission data says marijuana retails for $125 an ounce these days, down from $416 in 2020.
Ryan Dominguez, executive director of the Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition trade association, said 30 Massachusetts cannabis businesses closed in the last year.
Regulation is expensive, he said. And every neighboring state except New Hampshire has legalized recreational marijuana. Many of those states have tailored their laws – such as limits on how much customers can buy in one transaction – to compete with Massachusetts.
The federal law means none of them can take federal tax deductions, he said. And if they want to go out of business, they can't claim bankruptcy protection.
The bankruptcy issue is something the lawsuit could fix if it reaches the Supreme Court, Dominguez said.
'A lot of these people would have to declare personal bankruptcy,' he said.
And that means they would lose personal assets in addition to the business.
Placing pigeons in the park on purpose in Springfield
Cause detailed for February train derailment in Wendell
'Global order has been upset': World Affairs Council gauges tariff war impact on Western Mass
Read the original article on MassLive.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
40 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
California gun ban still alive. For now
A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed states to continue to ban semiautomatic AR-15-style rifles, which can be fired repeatedly without reloading and are owned by millions of Americans. But the issue is far from settled. Only two of the nine justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented from the court's decision to deny review of a federal appeals court ruling in September that upheld Maryland's AR-15 ban, similar to laws in California and seven other states. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another member of the court's conservative majority, said in a separate opinion that the appeals court ruling was 'questionable' and the Supreme Court 'should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon.' Thomas, in a dissent joined by Alito, said tens of millions of Americans own AR-15s, and an 'overwhelming majority … do so for lawful purposes.' And in a separate case, the court denied a challenge to a Rhode Island law, similar to California's, that bans possession of gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Justices Thomas, Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented. The actions reflect the uncertain status of gun-control laws since the court's 6-3 ruling in 2022 that said Americans have a constitutional right to carry concealed firearms in public. Thomas, in the majority opinion, said any restrictions on owning or carrying guns could be upheld only if they were 'consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation,' dating back to the nation's founding. Based on that ruling, many state gun laws have been overturned, and California has narrowed, though not repealed, its restrictions on carrying guns in public. But the Supreme Court appeared to move in a different direction last June when it ruled 8-1, with only Thomas dissenting, that the government could ban gun ownership by domestic abusers who have attacked or threatened someone in their household. It was the court's first direct ruling on guns since 2022. Kavanaugh's opinion suggested that reviewing bans on semiautomatics or other widely used weapons may be next for the court, despite Monday's denial. 'We are disappointed that some members of the Supreme Court did not have the judicial courage to do their most important job and enforce the Constitution,' said the Firearms Policy Coalition, a gun-advocacy nonprofit based in Sacramento. 'We are more resolved than ever to fight forward and eliminate these immoral bans throughout the nation, whatever and however long it takes.' The group urged the Trump administration to join a future legal challenge. The administration did not file arguments in the Maryland case, but President Donald Trump issued an executive order in February directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to review all firearms policies of President Joe Biden's administration and 'protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.' David Pucino, legal director of the San Francisco-based Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, was relieved by Monday's Supreme Court action. 'Courts have repeatedly upheld laws limiting access to highly dangerous weapons,' Pucino said in a statement. 'They are proven measures that protect families and reduce gun violence.' The court left intact a 9-5 ruling in September by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia upholding Maryland's AR-15 ban. The appeals court had rejected a challenge to the law in 2017, then was ordered by the Supreme Court to reconsider it under the standards of the 2022 ruling. The semiautomatic rifles are 'military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,' Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, wrote in the appeals court's majority opinion. A California appeals court gave similar reasons in 2023 for upholding the state's ban on many AR-15-style rifles, which has also been allowed to stand by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Under California's ban, semiautomatic rifles with fixed ammunition magazines — bullet chambers that require disassembly of the firearm to swap them out — can't hold more than 10 rounds. Those with detachable magazines, which enable swift reloading, can't have any of a number of additional features, such as pistol grips. In other states, the weapons are sometimes sold with forced-reset triggers, which pull the trigger back after each shot, allowing rapid refiring. Trump's Justice Department agreed last month to allow their sale under federal law, withdrawing the government's previous classification of the weapons as illegal machine guns. But California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Monday he has notified law enforcement agencies that the triggers are still prohibited by state law. In dissent from the 4th Circuit ruling, Judge Julius Richardson, a Trump appointee, said 20% of all firearms sold in the United States are AR-15s. 'Maryland's ban cannot pass constitutional muster as it prohibits the possession of arms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,' Richardson said. Maryland's law contains similar restrictions to those in the California ban. It also limits some features and bans semiautomatic rifles that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The Maryland case is Snope v. Brown, 24-203. The Rhode Island case is Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, 24-131.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Education Department declares June ‘Title IX Month'
The Education Department announced Monday that June, typically known as Pride Month, would be honored as 'Title IX Month' as it works to undo Biden-era transgender protections. The department said the move is 'in honor of the fifty-third anniversary of Title IX of the Educational Amendments (1972) being signed into law.' 'June will now be dedicated to commemorating women and celebrating their struggle for, and achievement of, equal educational opportunity,' its press release states. The Education Department will also highlight steps it has taken to 'reverse the Biden Administration's legacy of undermining Title IX' and says it will step up measures to 'protect women in line with the true purpose of Title IX,' it added. The move comes after the Trump administration has aimed to undo protections for transgender athletes, arguing it is unfair for transgender women and girls to play on teams that match their gender identity. The Department of Education has also launched numerous investigations against K-12 districts and higher education institutions for allowing transgender individuals on women's sports teams. 'The Department is recognizing June as 'Title IX Month' to honor women's hard-earned civil rights and demonstrate the Trump Administration's unwavering commitment to restoring them to the fullest extent of the law. Title IX provides women protections on the basis of sex in all educational activities, which include their rights to equal opportunity in sports and sex-segregated intimate spaces, including sororities and living accommodations,' said Education Secretary Linda McMahon. 'This Administration will fight on every front to protect women's and girls' sports, intimate spaces, dormitories and living quarters, and fraternal and panhellenic organizations,' she added. As Pride Month begins, LGBTQ rights organization GLAAD released a report indicating it recorded more than 1,000 incidents within the past year targeting the community, with more than half of those specifically going after transgender and gender-nonconforming Americans. 'This goes along with the really intense conversations that we're having right now around trans rights,' said GLAAD analyst Sarah Moore. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Digg's founders explain how they're building a site for humans in the AI era
The rebooted version of social site Digg aims to bring back the spirit of the old web at a time when AI-generated content is threatening to overwhelm traditional social media platforms, drowning out the voices of real people. This presents an opportunity to build a social site for the AI era, where the people who create content and manage online communities are given a bigger stake in a platform's success, Digg's founders think. A Web 2.0-era news aggregation giant, Digg was once valued at $175 million at its height back in 2008 and is now being given new life under the direction of its original founder, Kevin Rose, and Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian. The two recently teamed up to announce a new vision for Digg, which will focus on enabling discovery and community, the way that the early internet once allowed for. Speaking at The Wall Street Journal's Future of Everything conference on Thursday, the founders offered more insight as to how they plan to accomplish that goal with the Digg reboot. Initially, the two touched on problems they encountered in the earlier days of social media, with Ohanian recalling how he chose to resign from Reddit's board over disagreements about the company's approach to hate speech that he felt was bad for society and the business. For instance, the company was allowing a forum on Reddit called "r/WatchPeopleDie" to continue operating up until the Christchurch mass shooting, which caught the attention of the media, he said. It was only then that Reddit decided to adjust its policies around violence and gore on the platform. After Reddit, Ohanian went on to found venture capital firm Seven Seven Six, where he says he's focused on building businesses that are more "values-aligned." He said he sees Digg as another step in that direction. Rose reflected on the early days of machine learning, where the technology was often used to reward posts on which people would rant about the "most obscure, kind of fringe-y weirdness," he said. "Sometimes that can be good, but oftentimes it's pushing really weird agendas. And that's not even getting into the whole bot and AI side of things that are also pushing those agendas," Rose said. With Digg, the founders want to create a new community focused on serving real people, not AI or bots, they said. "I've long subscribed to the 'dead internet theory,'" Ohanian said, referencing the idea that much of what we see online is not created by actual humans, but bots. Ten years ago, this was more of a conspiracy theory, but with the rise of AI, that's changed, he said. "Probably in the last few years -- since we've blown past the Turing test -- [the dead internet theory] is a very real thing." "I think the average person has no idea just how much of the content they consume on social media, if it's not an outright bot, is a human using AI in the loop to generate that content at scale, to manipulate and evade," he added. To address the rise of bots, the founders are looking toward new technology, like zero-knowledge proofs (aka zk proofs), a protocol used in cryptography that could be used to prove that someone owns something on a platform. They're envisioning communities where admins could turn the dials, so to speak, to verify that a poster is human before allowing them to join the conversation. "The world is going to be flooded with bots, with AI agents," Rose pointed out, and that could infiltrate communities where people are trying to make genuine human connections. Something like this recently occurred on Reddit, where researchers secretly used AI bots to pose as real people on a forum to test how AI could influence human opinion. "We are going to live in a world where the vast, vast majority of the content we're seeing is in … some shape or form, AI-generated, and it is a terrible user experience if the reason you're coming to a place is for authentic human connection, and it's not with humans -- or it's with people masquerading as humans," Ohanian said. He explained that there are a number of ways that social sites could test to see if someone is a person. For instance, if someone has owned their device for a longer period of time, that could add more weight to their comment, he suggested. Rose said that the site could also offer different levels of service, based on how likely someone was to be human. If you signed up with a throw-away email address and used a VPN, for example, then maybe you would only be able to get recommendations or engage in some simpler ways. Or if you were anonymous and typed in a comment too quickly, the site could then ask you to take an extra step to prove your humanity -- like verifying your phone number or even charging you a small fee if the number you provided was disposable, Rose said. "There's going to be these tiers that we do, based on how you want to engage and interact with the actual network itself," he confirmed. However, the founders stressed they're not anti-AI. They expect to use AI to help in areas like site moderation, including de-escalating situations where someone starts to stir up trouble. In addition to verifying humans, the founders envision a service where moderators and creators financially benefit from their efforts. "I do believe the days of unpaid moderation by the masses -- doing all the heavy lifting to create massive, multi-million-person communities -- has to go away. I think these people are putting in their life and soul into these communities, and for them not to be compensated in some way is ridiculous to me. And so we have to figure out a way to bring them along for the ride," Rose said. As one example, he pointed to how Reddit trademarked the term "WallStreetBets," which is the name of a forum created by a Reddit user. Instead, Rose thinks a company should help creators like this who add value to a community, not try to take ownership of their work as Reddit did. With the combination of improved user experience and a model that empowers creators to monetize their work, the founders think Digg itself will benefit. "I want to believe the business model that will make Digg successful is one that aligns all those stakeholders. And I think it is very, very possible," Ohanian said. This article originally appeared on TechCrunch at Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
