No. 24-1628

CANNA PROVISIONS, INC.; GYASI SELLERS; WISEACRE FARM, INC.; VERANO HOLDINGS CORP.,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

PAMELA J. BONDI, Attorney General*

Defendant, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Mark G. Mastroianni, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Barron, Chief Judge, Montecalvo and Rikelman, Circuit Judges.

David Boies, with whom Jonathan D. Schiller, Matthew L. Schwartz, David P.G. Barillari, Joshua I. Schiller, and Boies Schiller Flexner LLP were on brief, for appellants. Daniel Aguilar, Attorney, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, with whom Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Mark B. Stern, Attorney, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, and Sarah Carroll, Attorney, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, were on brief, for appellee.

* Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Merrick B. Garland as Defendant-Appellee. May 27, 2025 BARRON, Chief Judge. The appellants are four businesses that allege that they cultivate, manufacture, possess, and/or distribute marijuana wholly within Massachusetts in full compliance with its laws and regulations. In 2023, they sued the Attorney General of the United States. They claimed that the Controlled Substances Act ("CSA"), 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., "as applied to [their] intrastate cultivation, manufacture, possession, and distribution of marijuana pursuant to state law," exceeded Congress's powers under Article I of the United States Constitution and violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. They sought a declaratory judgment to that effect. They also sought an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the CSA as to them, "in a manner that interferes with the intrastate cultivation, manufacture, possession, and distribution of marijuana, pursuant to state law." The District Court dismissed the appellants' claims for failing to state a claim on which relief could be granted. We affirm.

I.

A.

Congress enacted the CSA in 1970, as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 10-12 (2005). "The main objectives of the CSA were to conquer drug abuse and to control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances." Id. at 12. To do

- 3 - so, "Congress devised a closed regulatory system making it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess any controlled substance except in a manner authorized by the CSA." Id. at 13 (citing 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 844(a)).

The CSA grouped all controlled substances into five "schedules" based on their "accepted medical uses, the potential for abuse, and their psychological and physical effects on the body." Id. Each schedule imposed "a distinct set of controls regarding the manufacture, distribution, and use of the substances listed therein." Id. at 14.

The CSA classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug, which made "the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana . . . a criminal offense," except as authorized by the CSA. Id. "Despite considerable efforts to reschedule marijuana, it remains a Schedule