Intrastate State-Legal Marijuana Commerce Remains Subject to Federal Regulation Under the Commerce Clause

Introduction

Canna Provisions, Inc. v. Bondi is a First Circuit decision handed down on May 27, 2025, arising from an appeal by four Massachusetts‐based businesses—Canna Provisions, Inc.; Gyasi Sellers; Wiseacre Farm, Inc.; and Verano Holdings Corp.—challenging the application of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to their intrastate cultivation, manufacture, possession, and distribution of marijuana under state law. The plaintiffs‐appellants sought (1) a declaratory judgment that the CSA exceeded Congress’s powers under Article I of the Constitution as applied to their activities and violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; and (2) an injunction barring federal enforcement of the CSA against them. The United States Attorney General, Pamela J. Bondi, defended the federal statute. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the plaintiffs appealed.

Summary of the Judgment

The First Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that:

Under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress may rationally conclude that intrastate commercial marijuana activity substantially affects the interstate market and that regulating it is an “essential part” of the CSA’s comprehensive federal scheme.
Post-Raich developments—such as annual appropriations riders limiting DOJ funds for medical marijuana enforcement (the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment) and the District of Columbia’s 2010 medical program—do not undercut the CSA’s overall comprehensive regulatory design or Congress’s rational basis for inclusion of intrastate, state-law marijuana commerce.
No fundamental right to cultivate, sell, or use marijuana for medical or recreational purposes is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” or implicit in ordered liberty; therefore, the CSA’s application survives minimal rational-basis review under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Accordingly, the CSA as applied to the appellants’ intrastate commercial marijuana activities did not exceed Congress’s Article I powers, nor did it violate substantive due process.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005): The Supreme Court upheld the CSA’s application to intrastate, non-commercial cultivation and possession of medical marijuana under state law. Raich established both (a) a rational-basis test for Commerce Clause challenges and (b) the “essential part” rationale—Congress could rationally conclude that even small‐scale intrastate marijuana cultivation affects the national market.
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995): Recognized that Congress’s commerce power has outer limits and that regulated activity must substantially affect interstate commerce.
United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S. 110 (1942): Described the test of whether intrastate activity “in a substantial way interfere[s] with or obstruct[s] the exercise of the granted power” over interstate commerce.
United States v. Sirois, 119 F.4th 143 (1st Cir. 2024): Noted the annual appropriations rider limiting DOJ from preventing state medical marijuana programs.
United States v. Bilodeau, 24 F.4th 705 (1st Cir. 2022): Explained the practical limitation that Rohrabacher-Farr places on federal prosecutors regarding medical marijuana enforcement in certain states.
Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997): Set forth the test for establishing fundamental rights under substantive due process—rights must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and implicit in ordered liberty.

2. Legal Reasoning

a) Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause
The court applied the two‐part framework derived from Raich and Lopez. First, it recognized that the appellants engage in commercial activity—growing, manufacturing, and distributing marijuana—which fits squarely within the economic activity that Congress may regulate. Second, the court found a rational basis for believing that unregulated intrastate marijuana commerce would undercut the CSA’s national regulatory scheme by facilitating diversion into interstate markets.

The appellants argued that post-Raich changes—particularly the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, which curtails DOJ funding for enforcing the CSA against state-compliant medical marijuana activities in certain jurisdictions—demonstrated Congress’s abandonment of a comprehensive federal approach. The court rejected this, observing that the appropriation rider is narrowly tailored to medical programs in specific states, leaves the CSA intact for non-medical marijuana, and does not negate Congress’s rational choice to include all commercial marijuana in its national scheme.

b) Due Process Clause
The appellants sought to invoke substantive due process by positing a fundamental right to cultivate and trade marijuana. The court applied the Glucksberg test, requiring a “careful description” of any asserted right and demonstration that it is “deeply rooted” in the nation’s history and tradition. Historical evidence of colonial hemp cultivation and early uses of cannabis failed to establish a longstanding legal tradition of personal or commercial marijuana rights; indeed, the CSA’s Schedule I classification finds solid legislative and regulatory pedigree dating back to 1970 and earlier. Consequently, no fundamental right exists, and the CSA easily meets the minimal rational-basis standard.

3. Impact

Reaffirms Raich as controlling precedent for as-applied Commerce Clause challenges to the CSA, even in the face of expanding state legalization regimes.
Limits arguments that annual appropriations riders or state-level legalization signal a congressional retreat from comprehensive federal regulation of marijuana.
Signals to cannabis businesses and state regulators that federal prohibition remains enforceable against commercial marijuana activity, notwithstanding state legalization and policy shifts.
Provides clarity that no substantive due process right protects the manufacture or sale of marijuana—medical or adult-use—under current federal constitutional doctrine.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3): Authorizes Congress to regulate “Commerce . . . among the several States.” Federal statutes require that regulated activities have a rational link to interstate commerce.
Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18): Permits Congress to enact laws “necessary and proper” to carry out its enumerated powers, including regulating interstate commerce.
Rational-Basis Review: A deferential judicial standard under which a law survives if Congress could have had any reasonable basis to believe the regulated activity affects interstate commerce.
Substantive Due Process: A constitutional doctrine protecting certain fundamental rights from government interference. To qualify, a right must be deeply rooted in American history and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.
Controlled Substances Act (CSA): Federal law that classifies controlled substances into schedules (I–V) and criminalizes the manufacture, distribution, and possession of Schedule I drugs—marijuana among them—except as authorized by federal regulation.
Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment: A recurring appropriations rider prohibiting DOJ from using federal funds to prevent states from implementing medical marijuana laws in specified jurisdictions.

Conclusion

Canna Provisions, Inc. v. Bondi reaffirms the enduring scope of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause to regulate intrastate commercial marijuana—even when such activity is conducted wholly under state legalization schemes. The decision underscores the continued vitality of Gonzales v. Raich and illustrates the judiciary’s deference to Congress’s comprehensive federal drug-control framework. It also confirms that no substantive due process right shields state-legal marijuana commerce from the CSA. For practitioners, regulators, and stakeholders in the cannabis industry, this ruling is a reminder that federal prohibition remains a potent force, and that state-law frameworks cannot insulate commercial marijuana enterprises from federal enforcement.