U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Major Federal Marijuana Prohibition Challenge — What It Means for Reform

On December 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a landmark case challenging the federal prohibition on marijuana, dealing a setback to reform advocates and cannabis businesses seeking constitutional relief from the Controlled Substances Act.

The case, Canna Provisions et al. v. Bondi, was brought by four state-licensed cannabis companies that argued the current federal ban on marijuana is no longer constitutional in light of sweeping state legalization, economic realities, and evolving public opinion.

What Happened at the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari means that it will not review the challenge to federal marijuana prohibition at this time. Simply put, the Court refused to take up the case, letting existing federal law remain in place without ruling on the merits of the constitutional arguments.

This is the first time cannabis businesses had pushed the Supreme Court to consider the issue since Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the decision that upheld Congress’s authority to criminalize marijuana even where states permit its medical use.

Background: Canna Provisions v. Bondi

The plaintiffs in the case included:

• Canna Provisions, a Massachusetts cannabis retailer

• Wiseacre Farm, a cultivator

• Verano Holdings Corp., a major multistate operator

• Gyasi Sellers, CEO of Treevit delivery service

They initially challenged the federal prohibition in 2023, arguing that:

• The Controlled Substances Act violates due process.

• The Constitution protects their right to cultivate and sell marijuana.

• Expansive state legalization has fundamentally changed the legal landscape since Raich.

Lower federal courts — both the district and appellate levels — previously rejected these arguments, prompting the petition to the Supreme Court.

Why the Supreme Court Passed

Supreme Court denials of certiorari do not necessarily reflect agreement with lower court rulings — rather, the justices may decline review for procedural or strategic reasons. However, legal analysts see this denial as a signal that the Court is not ready to revisit federal cannabis prohibition, at least for now.

By leaving Raich intact and refusing to take up Canna Provisions, the Court effectively postpones judicial resolution of the conflict between state legalization and federal drug policy.

Impact on Cannabis Reform Efforts

Federal Policy Still Center Stage

With the judiciary stepping back, reform advocates now look squarely toward Congress and the White House for change. Recent developments suggest the Biden and Trump administrations have both at times considered rescheduling marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, which could ease federal restrictions through administrative action rather than litigation.

Rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III — a category for substances with accepted medical use and lower abuse potential — would be a major policy shift. However, proposals so far have not completely dismantled federal prohibition.

State vs. Federal Conflict Remains

For state-legal cannabis businesses and patients, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case means that federal prohibition continues to loom, with conflicting rules between state and federal law. Banking access, taxation, research barriers, and federal enforcement risk persist.

What’s Next for Marijuana Legalization?

Legislative Paths

With judicial avenues limited, many reformers are pushing for federal legislation to:

• End prohibition entirely

• Establish a legal national framework

• Protect state-legal markets

• Address criminal justice inequities

Bills like the MORE Act, CAOA, and other proposals remain the primary legislative vehicles for sweeping reform.

Executive Action

The executive branch can also act through rescheduling, prosecutorial policy changes, and regulatory adjustments, though these actions are incremental compared to full legalization.

Reform Momentum Continues — Despite Court’s Decision

While the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear Canna Provisions v. Bondi is disappointing for reform advocates, it does not close the door on federal cannabis policy change. The denial re-focuses momentum on Congress and the White House, and underscores the importance of continued activism, public education, and political engagement.

For organizations like Suncoast NORML, this moment is a reminder that marijuana reform is still a work in progress, requiring strategic pressure across all branches of government.