The District of Columbia is moving to shut down a federal lawsuit filed by the Alliance for Recreational Cannabis Entities, arguing the group has no legal standing and its claims against the city’s cannabis regulations are baseless. The motion to dismiss, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, takes aim at the Alliance’s legal challenge on multiple constitutional fronts.
The Alliance, which represents a group of recreational cannabis businesses, accused the District of violating the U.S. Constitution with its regulations. The lawsuit, filed against the District, Mayor Muriel Bowser and several city agencies and officials, seeks to challenge the legal framework governing medical and recreational cannabis.
The District’s legal team, led by Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb, asserts in the motion that the Alliance’s case should be thrown out. The government argues the Alliance lacks the necessary standing to sue because it has not shown that its members face a concrete or imminent injury. The motion states that the Alliance relies on past alleged harms, such as fines and cease-and-desist orders, which are not sufficient to justify a request for a forward-looking injunction. The District also questions the Alliance’s legal status, claiming it has not demonstrated the “indicia of a traditional membership association” required to sue on behalf of its members.
On the merits of the case, the District’s motion challenges each of the Alliance’s constitutional claims. Regarding the Alliance’s Seventh Amendment claim that fines are levied without a jury trial, the District argues that administrative actions related to business licensing fall under a “public rights” exception, making a jury unnecessary.
The motion also addresses the Alliance’s due process claims, which criticize the impartiality of the city’s Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board (ABCA) and the timing of its hearings. The District’s lawyers contend that a mix of investigative, prosecutorial, and adjudicative functions is a necessary part of the administrative scheme and does not violate due process. They also maintain that post-deprivation hearings for summary closures are constitutionally sufficient, citing the government’s interest in protecting public health and safety.
Furthermore, the District’s filing rejects the Alliance’s argument that its regulations violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, which prevents states from enacting laws that favor in-state businesses. The District asserts that this clause does not apply because cannabis remains a federally illegal substance. The motion points to a number of federal court decisions that support this position.
The District’s motion also takes on the Alliance’s claims of vagueness and overbreadth. The Alliance contends that D.C. laws create confusion by permitting non-commercial cannabis transfers while simultaneously regulating commercial sales. The District’s lawyers counter that the statutes provide clear guidance, and that it is a common practice for activities that are legal for individuals to be regulated when conducted by a commercial entity.
Finally, the motion refutes the Alliance’s claims of forced self-incrimination and unlawful searches. The District argues that the Fifth Amendment does not apply to voluntary participation in a regulated industry, such as applying for a license. It also states that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unlawful searches is diminished for businesses in a “closely regulated” industry like cannabis, making warrantless inspections permissible. A decision on the motion to dismiss is pending from the U.S. District Court.
The alliance is represented by lawyer, Jacobie Whitley. It is unclear what past I-71 businesses are currently part of the alliance.
