A federal lawsuit challenging the District of Columbia’s cannabis enforcement system escalated as both sides filed sharply contrasting legal arguments in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. this month.
The Alliance of Recreational Cannabis Entities LLC, a trade group representing unlicensed cannabis retailers, argues that the District’s regulatory framework violates the U.S. Constitution by imposing summary closures, cease-and-desist orders and administrative penalties without adequate procedural protections. In its opposition brief, the Alliance claims that affected businesses receive only a single post-deprivation hearing and that the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration (ABCA) improperly shifts the burden of proof onto the business owner to justify reopening after a closure order.
Citing Speiser v. Randall and related cases, the Alliance argues that due process forbids making the accused “bear the burden of proof” when property and liberty have already been seized. The filing also asserts that the administrative scheme improperly denies the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial and creates unconstitutional bias because ABCA allegedly benefits financially from the fines it imposes.
The Alliance further maintains that D.C.’s cannabis regulations violate the Dormant Commerce Clause by restricting participation in a broader cannabis market. The group contends that the District’s enforcement actions—particularly the classification of unlicensed retailers as “nuisances”—are legal determinations historically subject to jury adjudication and therefore cannot be resolved solely through administrative procedures. In support of its due-process arguments, the Alliance points to statutory provisions it says allow only one hearing after a business has already been ordered closed and argues that the statutory burden placed on the business at that hearing contradicts established constitutional standards.
The District of Columbia, in its reply brief, urges the court to dismiss the case in full, arguing that the Alliance lacks standing and that none of its constitutional theories survive legal scrutiny. The District maintains that the Alliance has not identified a concrete injury traceable to District officials and cannot assert claims on behalf of unidentified members.
It disputes the Seventh Amendment claim by arguing that administrative enforcement actions—such as nuisance abatement, licensing compliance and regulatory fines—have historically been handled by agencies and civil authorities without jury involvement. Regarding due process, the District argues that its system provides adequate post-deprivation hearings and does not shift the burden of proof in the manner the Alliance alleges. It also rejects the Dormant Commerce Clause argument on the grounds that cannabis remains illegal under federal law, meaning no lawful interstate cannabis market exists for D.C. to regulate or burden.
The District further asserts that several of the Alliance’s claims were abandoned because they were not addressed in the opposition brief. Both filings ask the court to resolve the case as a matter of law—either by dismissing the claims outright, as the District urges, or by allowing the Alliance’s constitutional challenges to proceed. The court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss ARCE’s lawsuit.
