Pacific Legal Foundation Urges U.S. Supreme Court to Rein In Federal Power Over In-State Marijuana Activity

OG article by Anthony Martinelli

November 27, 2025

The Pacific Legal Foundation has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the federal government lacks constitutional authority to regulate or criminalize marijuana activities confined entirely within one state. Submitted on behalf of Florida resident Michael Colosi, the brief contends that the Commerce Clause does not extend to local activities without interstate connections, labeling the federal Controlled Substances Act's interference as a constitutional mismatch. It highlights tensions between state legalization and federal prohibition, noting vulnerabilities for state-licensed businesses. The filing criticizes expansive interpretations of the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause, exemplified by Colosi's case involving potential federal fees over local property impacts from the Florida scrub-jay. It references past decisions like Gonzales v. Raich as having improperly allowed federal oversight of non-interstate conduct. The brief urges revisiting precedents to prevent nationwide bans on state-compliant local economic activities. Timed ahead of the Court's December 15 decision on whether to hear the Canna Provisions case—a Massachusetts marijuana company operating solely within state borders—the filing draws parallels between the disputes. If granted review, the case could become the most significant marijuana ruling in Supreme Court history, potentially reshaping legal frameworks for consumers, businesses, and states defying federal bans. The Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit focused on limiting government overreach since 1973, frequently litigates Commerce Clause issues. This brief follows a similar filing by the Cato Institute in the same case.