US Supreme Court dismisses cases involving labor compensation for medical cannabis

The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected petitions to hear two cases challenging Minnesota’s refusal to cover medicinal cannabis through the state’s worker’s compensation program. In both cases, workers are demanding a review of the Minnesota Superior Court decision that found the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) superseded state law, resulting in a denial of medical cannabis coverage for workers’ work-related injuries .

The Supreme Court asked the US Department of Justice to file a brief in the case before making a decision. In response, the Justice Department agreed with the Minnesota court that the CSA preempts state law. However, Justice Department attorneys also argued that the states had not adequately addressed the issue of federal primacy and called on the Supreme Court to reserve judgment on the development of the law.

The case wasn’t the first time a state court had ruled on medical marijuana workers’ compensation coverage. In 2014, the New Mexico Court of Appeals approved recovery of medical cannabis claims for work-related injuries. However, the rulings on similar cases in Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Minnesota have not been consistent. Courts in New Hampshire, New York and New Jersey found state statutes did not conflict with the CSA and granted medical cannabis worker compensation claims. But in Maine, Massachusetts and Minnesota, judges have ruled that federal laws take precedence.

Is the SCOTUS decision bad news?

Attorney Anne Davis, the co-founder of Bennabis Health, a company specializing in providing affordable access to medical cannabis for patients, says the Supreme Court’s decision to decline hearing the cases is not necessarily a negative outcome for patients is.

“Although I would have loved a federal government decision mandating that cannabis is indeed a covered benefit, [the court] Forgoing the states could be good in the grand scheme of the industry,” Davis wrote in an email to High Times. “The more the Supreme Court waives states’ rights, the more I think it helps our growing industry. When the federal government takes the hands-off approach and leaves it up to states’ rights, it allows the cannabis industry to grow and expand.”

As states take the lead in marijuana reform, Davis believes federal laws allowing interstate cannabis trade would create the most favorable climate for the industry.

“The issue we have yet to address is interstate trade,” Davis said. “If we can somehow manage this, then I think that the state’s rights to control the cannabis industry is a much better option than the federal government rescheduling and allowing big pharma to take control.”

Some advocates of cannabis policy reform had hoped the Supreme Court would rule on the Minnesota cases after Judge Clarence Thomas made comments last year suggesting he believes the federal marijuana ban no longer makes sense, since so many states pass laws that conflict with federal laws.

“A ban on domestic use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or appropriate to support the federal government’s phased approach,” he wrote.

Unanswered questions

Commenting on a case the Supreme Court declined to hear, in which a Colorado cannabis dispensary challenged federal policy denying standard business deductions for cannabis companies, Thomas said a 2005 Supreme Court ruling upending the federal ban maintained for possession of cannabis may be outdated.

“Federal policy over the past 16 years has severely undermined their argument,” he continued. “The current federal government approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and prohibits local marijuana use.”

This week’s US Supreme Court lawsuit leaves many questions unanswered about the feasibility of medical cannabis workers’ compensation. In an analysis of the refusal to grant the petitions, The National Law Review wrote that “the Supreme Court’s decision to remain on the sidelines of the debate over legalizing marijuana is disappointing to many who had hoped that the Supreme Court would help break the deadlock in Congress. The decision also leaves the clear conflict over reimbursement for medical cannabis through worker’s compensation in state court decisions and alleviates the potential for further conflict as this issue continues to trickle out across the country.”