Cannabis And Appellate Law Practices Collab

 Cannabis And Appellate Law Practices Collab

 Cannabis and a pellet law practices collaborate to prepare Amicus brief to U.S Supreme Court in challenge to marry you in a schedule the national cannabis industry Association ncia the largest cannabis threat Association in the United States and the arcview group The cannabis industry's oldest and largest investors Network Step It Forward as Embassy before the U.S Supreme Court in the case of Marvin Washington petitioner William P part and Etc.

 With seeks to invalidate marijuana's Cato status under the controlled substance act CSA on contextual ground both organizations have a significant interest in the responsible and legal development of a sustainable cannabis industry in the United States as well as in protecting the constitutional rights of their member constituent fashion and consumer Wilson elsers cannabis low and affiliate practice team drafted their Amicus brief for a read of certiorari in challenge to marry you in a schedule status the petitioner include two children with serious laser disorder who require life-saving medical cannabis and Iraq war veteran who treat his server PTSD with medical cannabis and a former NFL football player who is now an entrepreneur in the medical cannabis space in their complaint fought in the southern district of New York the petitioner asked the trial court to strike down marijuana's Cato's status on the basis that it violate their right under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution both the trial court and the second Circuit Court of Appeals have that the petitioner were required to exhaust administrative remedies with the Drug Enforcement Administration DEA before they could seek a legal remedy with the court the petitioner then appealed to the United States Supreme Court the rcia and arcview joined the petitioner's argument that the lower court are read in required exhortion of administrative remedies which will result in the petitioner facing substantial Prejudice because the DEA maintained an irrational and arcade position on the scheduling of cannabis that is out of step with sweeping medical scientific legal and social advance.

 The Amicus Brave argues that the DEA isn't only unwilling but also incapable of providing the remedy soaked by the petitioner making Excursion fujio and inappropriate as recently as 2016 the DEA reiterated its long-standing but flawed position that it cannot legally classify cannabis anywhere but schedule one of the CSA or potentially scheduled to due to the international trading obligation reclassification of cannabis to scale 2 however doesn't represent a viable remedy for the petitioner the DEA had multiple opportunities since the early 1970s to determine the proper classification for cannabis under the CSA including whether it should have any classification under the stated the evidence nevertheless led to the inscapable conclusion that the agency has 4 decayed consistently to evaluate or ignored advances in canabinoid science indeed the second circuit acknowledged in its decision on the repeal that based on our current state of knowledge it is possible that the current law through rational one is now heading toward Eritrea similarly it may even conceivably that the has gotten there already this is previously the point the DEA can reasonably be expected to determine whether its own in transit position has become so irrational that it now violates the petitioner consider institutional right there is an issue squarely within the domain of the code not a federal law enforcement agency in dismissing the petitioner constitutional claim the second circuit casually concluded that it cannot be seriously urged that the reclassification or descaling cannabis isn't available through the administrative process yet petitions are made righteously this argument in our Amicus brief we further asked the Supreme Court to consider whether it is reasonable to believe that feeling yet another petition with the DEA would cause the agency to reverse and entrenched a legal position that has become irrational over time and particularly when the agency was vigorously defended that position since as long ago as 17 2 and as recently as 2016.

Share :