Standing Akimbo, Inc., et al. v. United States

Two years ago, the Petitioners petitioned this Court to review the IRS actions enforcing the Controlled Substances Act against the Petitioners through the Tax Code and summons proceedings. While this Court denied the petition, Justice Clarence Thomas concurrently issued a Statement calling into question the Government’s “half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana.” He additionally stated that “[t]his contradictory and unstable state of affairs strains basic principles of federalism. . . .” Standing Akimbo, LLC v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2236, 2237 (2021). Further, Justice Thomas stated that “This case (Standing Akimbo I) is a prime example.” Id. Two years after Justice Thomas’ Statement, the federal Government has paid little heed. The IRS is still enforcing the CSA against state-legal cannabis using the Tax Code and its powers as a drug enforcement agency. Thus, the questions presented are:

1. Should Gonzales v. Raich be overruled, i.e., whether the CSA as supplemented by the half-in, half-out regime is in excess of Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause?

2. Whether the Federal Government’s implementation of the “half-in, half-out regime” prohibiting intrastate production and sale of marijuana is not necessary or proper under the Necessary and Proper Clause.