In a pivotal ruling issued on October 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to deny a motion filed by Lucas and Alisa Sirois, a Maine couple accused of operating an illegal marijuana cultivation and distribution network, to end federal prosecution against them. The ruling is significant not only because of its direct impact on the Siroises but also due to its broader implications for the ongoing tension between state and federal cannabis laws. The case underscores the legal complexities at the intersection of state and federal marijuana laws and provides additional clarity on the confines of the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment.
Background of the Case
Prior to their indictment in 2021, the Siroises operated a business that specialized in the cultivation, production, and sale of marijuana products pursuant to the Maine Medical Use of Cannabis Act. Enacted in 2009, the act sets forth conditions under which it is lawful under Maine law to possess, use, cultivate, and distribute marijuana for medical purposes. Despite the act’s provisions and Maine’s legalization of adult-use cannabis in 2016, federal law, which classifies marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), continues to prohibit its cultivation, distribution, and possession.
The Siroises sought to enjoin their prosecution by invoking the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, which prohibits the Department of Justice from prosecuting cases that would interfere with states’ ability to implement their own medical marijuana laws. Their defense hinged on the argument that their actions were lawful under Maine’s state regulations, asserting that cannabis legalization in Maine provided a clear legal basis for their operations. Specifically, the Siroises contended that their business, which was conducted in compliance with Maine state law, was lawful.
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the Siroises could not invoke the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment to shield their state-regulated medical marijuana enterprises from federal enforcement because they could not show their activities complied with Maine law.
Legal Analysis
Using United States v. Bilodeau, 24 F.4th 705 (1st Cir. 2022) as a guide, the First Circuit found that the use of the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment to shield state-sanctioned medical marijuana operations from federal prosecution requires that those operations and activities must be “substantially compliant” with the state medical marijuana regime. In this case, the First Circuit found that the Siroises had the burden of proof to show that their marijuana cultivation operation and activities were within the purview of Maine’s medical cannabis regulatory regime.
The First Circuit found that, despite their arguments, the Siroises failed to prove their compliance with Maine’s medical marijuana regime. Under the Maine Medical Use of Marijuana Program (MMMP), “caregivers” and caregivers’ “assistants” are permitted to engage in certain “authorized conduct” “for the purpose of assisting…qualifying patient[s] with the patient[‘s] medical use of marijuana. To participate in the MMMP, caregivers and assistants generally must register with and be licensed by Maine’s Office of Cannabis Policy (OCP). Multiple caregivers are permitted to “operate separately and occupy separate spaces within a common facility” so long as they “do not share [marijuana] plants or harvested [marijuana] resulting from the cultivation of those plants.” Additionally, under the MMMP, caregivers are expressly prohibited from “form[ing] or participat[ing] in a collective.” A “collective” is “an association, cooperative, affiliation or group of caregivers who physically assist each other in the act of cultivation, processing or distribution of marijuana for medical use for the benefit of the members of the collective.” Alisa Sirois was a licensed medical cannabis caregiver under the MMMP, however, the First Circuit determined that Sirois had not meaningfully rebutted any of the government’s evidence that the couple’s marijuana activities were substantially noncompliant with the MMMP. “Apart from her argument about her license having been suspended but then restated, she develops no argument as to why the record shows by a preponderance that she was in substantial compliance with the [MMMP],” the three-judge panel said. Additionally, Lucas Sirois is alleged to have sold more than $13 million in unlicensed cannabis over a six-year period. Furthermore, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maine said, “[the OCP] requested the federal government to investigate the defendants because it believed that they operated as a collective, which was illegal under the [MMMP].”
Implications of This Ruling
The First Circuit’s decision to affirm the district court’s ruling not to enjoin federal prosecution of the Siroises shines light on the confines of the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment. Namely, it provides some additional clarity and guidance on the permissive actions and activities that warrant the protection of the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment (i.e., the substantial compliance standard). Despite this additional clarity, in a petition filed by Lucas Sirois on October 29, he argued that the First Circuit failed to “define the precise contours” of the substantial compliance standard. He further argued that “[this] guidance is unclear – if not completely lacking. The Court has a responsibility to provide criminal defendants with clarity as to what showing must be made to establish substantial compliance. Even if the Court does not believe a precise standard can be enumerated, the federal government should not be permitted to expend federal funds on the prosecution of a medical marijuana program participant whose participation in the program was continuously approved and sanctioned by the state regulatory authorities.” Sirois’ petition is requesting an en banc review of the panel’s decision on October 15.
Our Cannabis Practice provides advice on issues related to applicable federal and state law. Marijuana remains an illegal controlled substance under federal law.
