The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an order setting a briefing schedule in a lawsuit brought by anti-marijuana organizations, including Smart Approaches to Marijuana, and cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical company MMJ International Holdings and its subsidiaries, challenging a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services program that covers up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products annually for eligible Medicare beneficiaries.
Appeals court sets briefing schedule in lawsuit challenging Medicare hemp coverage program
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an order setting a briefing schedule in a lawsuit brought by anti-marijuana organizations, including Smart Approaches to Marijuana, and cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical company MMJ International Holdings and its subsidiaries, challenging a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services program that covers up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products annually for eligible Medicare beneficiaries.
U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden dismissed the challenge in May, ruling that the plaintiffs had not established standing to bring the case. 'Each claims an injury too abstract or too remote to open the courtroom doors,' McFadden wrote. He dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction as moot.
The appeals court order, signed by court clerk Clifton B. Cislak, sets the following schedule: appellants' brief due October 5; appellees' brief due November 4; appellants' reply brief due November 25; deferred appendix due December 2; and final briefs due December 16. The order states the case 'may be set for oral argument,' with details to follow in a separate order if a hearing is scheduled.
The CMS program, known as the Substance Access Beneficiary Engagement Incentive (BEI), allows hemp-derived products containing no more than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC by dry weight and up to 3 milligrams of total THC per serving. Inhalable preparations are not permitted. CMS does not pay for the products directly; participating providers furnish eligible products at their own cost, subject to the $500 annual cap per beneficiary, and share in savings if the intervention reduces a beneficiary's total cost of care.
In April, lawyers for Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and CMS Director Mehmet Oz filed a brief arguing the plaintiffs lacked standing. McFadden agreed, finding that the organizational plaintiffs had not shown their claimed resource diversion interfered with their core activities, that MMJ was 'not a direct and current competitor with anyone selling hemp to Medicare beneficiaries,' and that individual plaintiff David Evans, an anti-marijuana lawyer and Medicare recipient, would face no concrete harm even if his doctor recommended hemp products to him.
The CMS initiative followed an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in December directing the attorney general to finalize a federal marijuana rescheduling rule and containing components to improve access to full-spectrum CBD products. A separate law Trump signed late last year is scheduled to take effect in November and would restrict hemp-derived products to those containing no more than 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container. The White House has called on Congress to amend that planned restriction, and Oz has written to senators pressing for a delay in its effective date.
- The source does not state which specific members of Congress sent the bipartisan letter to Trump pressing for guidance on Medicare coverage of medical cannabis.
- The source does not state the outcome or conclusions of the White House Office of Management and Budget meetings concerning FDA CBD enforcement policy.
- The source does not state the current status of the separate lawsuits filed by SAM, MMJ, and others challenging the federal marijuana rescheduling action.
- The source does not state the current status of the finalized CMS rule allowing hemp product coverage through Medicare Advantage plans.
- The source does not identify the specific organizational plaintiffs beyond SAM and MMJ International Holdings and its subsidiaries.
- The source does not state whether Smart Approaches to Marijuana responded to the appeals court briefing schedule order.
Read the original at Marijuana Moment