💸 The Tape

In a courtroom drama that felt less like a Second Amendment showdown and more like a philosophical seminar on founding-era drunkards, the U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared notably dubious about the federal government's defense of a law barring marijuana users from owning firearms. As oral arguments unfolded in U.S. vs. Hemani, the justices poked holes in the idea that cannabis consumption inherently renders someone a danger to society—especially with federal rescheduling potentially shifting marijuana's legal status.

The case centers on Section 922(g)(3) of federal law, which prohibits "unlawful users" of controlled substances from possessing guns. Ali Danial Hemani, convicted for owning firearms while regularly using cannabis, challenged the statute, arguing it violates his Second Amendment rights. The Trump administration's Justice Department (DOJ) has steadfastly defended the ban, likening marijuana users to the mentally ill or habitual drunkards to draw historical parallels from America's founding era, as required under strict Supreme Court precedent.

But the justices weren't buying it wholesale. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, cut to the chase: "Legislatures can regulate to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, but when I look at this statute—and when I look at what the qualifications are for being listed on one of these schedules—they’re all about public safety. Here with the marijuana, I just don’t see anything in the scheme that actually reflects Congress’s judgment that this makes someone more dangerous."

Fellow Trump appointee Justice Neil Gorsuch raised a particularly timely point, nodding to the Biden-era push to reschedule cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). "The drug that is involved in this case might wind up being a Schedule III drug tomorrow," he said. "It’s just an odd case to have chosen to test the principle when the government itself is potentially rescheduling it as a drug that it wouldn’t think would qualify" for categorical disarmament.

Gorsuch pressed further: "Is it just Schedule I? Is it Schedule II? How far down does that go?" He questioned whether the ban should apply narrowly to higher-schedule drugs but not others, especially as marijuana's reclassification looms.

Sarah Harris, principal deputy solicitor general for the Trump administration's DOJ, responded that "at the time when the offense was committed, marijuana is in—was a Schedule I drug." She added that "the government has not made final decisions with respect to what to do with marijuana," but emphasized that even Schedule III drugs like ketamine remain dangerous, differing only in having some medical uses.

Erin Murphy, representing Hemani from Clement & Murphy, PLLC, argued that while categorical prohibitions might be constitutional, the government must prove they align with historical traditions. "Our core point is, if Congress wants to do that, then the government needs to prove with its burden of proof under [past Supreme Court precedent] not just that this was a reasonable determination supported by substantial evidence... that it has, in fact, identified the category in a way that maps on to the historical tradition."

The hearing delved into hypotheticals, like Justice Elena Kagan's query about infrequent ayahuasca use: "If the drug is ayahuasca, and it’s a very, very, very intense hallucinogen—and the episode lasts a very long time, but it’s not, let’s say, an addictive drug [and] you can choose when to take it, but when you’re in its grip, reality dissolves—I’m assuming that Congress has a good reason for saying, when reality dissolves, you don’t want guns around."

Murphy countered that occasional use wouldn't necessarily render someone akin to the "historical drunkard" standard, where consumption impairs function even in sobriety. She stressed that for marijuana, the government's blanket approach ignores nuances: "It doesn’t matter if it’s somebody who’s taken the sleep gummy, smoking one joint a couple nights a week... or if it’s the person who’s smoking all day before they drive their car... They say none of that matters—and we think it does."

Murphy highlighted the irony: "It would be difficult for the government to make that showing when it is the considered judgment of 40 states, the District of Columbia, three territories and the president" that cannabis use doesn’t intrinsically make a person a danger.

This skepticism aligns with a broader wave of legal challenges to 922(g)(3). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit last year sided with a federal district court dismissing an indictment against Jared Michael Harrison, who was charged in Oklahoma after police found cannabis and a handgun in his vehicle. The case was remanded, with the lower court ruling the statute unconstitutional as applied.

In the Eleventh Circuit, judges recently affirmed medical cannabis patients' Second Amendment rights. The Eighth Circuit vacated a conviction, noting potential retrial needs to assess if cannabis made the defendant dangerous. The Third Circuit emphasized "individualized judgments" for the statute's constitutionality.

A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report noted growing federal courts "finding constitutional problems" with parts of the firearms prohibition. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) recently loosened rules, narrowing "unlawful user" definitions to affect fewer people.

Amid this, 19 states' attorneys general and D.C. filed a brief urging the court to uphold the ban, though Colorado's governor later disavowed his AG's stance. Prohibitionist groups like Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) echoed the call, linking cannabis to violence and psychosis.

Trump's solicitor general argued illegal drug users "pose a greater danger" than alcohol consumers. Biden-era DOJ guidance cautioned discretion in prosecuting cannabis cases, especially those qualifying for pardons—relevant as Supreme Court scrutiny intensifies.

The Biden administration expressed concerns about liability in federal cases for simple cannabis-related gun convictions. Documents obtained by Marijuana Moment show 2024 guidance urging U.S. attorneys to weigh factors carefully.

If the court upholds 922(g)(3), it could resolve pending cases like U.S. v. Daniels and U.S. v. Sam. The court denied cert in U.S. v. Cooper. A Florida case challenging the ban for medical marijuana users was delayed in October, with DOJ citing Hemani.

Republican senators told Marijuana Moment that if alcohol users can own guns, so should cannabis consumers. The ACLU and NRA, in rare alignment, argue the policy infringes rights for a substance legalized in most states.

Rescheduling could moot parts of the debate. Trump's December directive expedited moving cannabis to Schedule III, potentially weakening DOJ's "dangerous" argument.

A ruling is expected later this term. If for Hemani, it might not fully strike down 922(g)(3) but require individualized assessments. Gun groups see Monday's arguments leaning favorably, but scope remains uncertain.

In a nation where only 1 in 10 Americans say marijuana should be illegal, this case underscores evolving norms. As rescheduling nears, the justices' skepticism hints at a potential recalibration—reminding us that founding-era logic might not map neatly to modern gummies and joints.

Source: Marijuana Moment

📈 Dog Walkers

$MRMD ( ▼ 4.48% ) Strengthens Cap Structure

In the cannabis sector, where short-term pressures can feel like a bad high, MariMed Inc. (CSE: MRMD) (OTCQX: MRMD) just bought itself some breathing room — and then some.

The company announced today a restructuring and exchange agreement with holders of its $14.725 million Series B Convertible Preferred Stock, swapping a looming February 2026 mandatory conversion for a mix of longer-dated instruments. The deal pushes the weighted average maturity out by 4.6 years, dialing down refinancing risks and bolstering liquidity without the drama of a last-minute scramble.

Under the terms, MariMed issued: a $2 million promissory note due March 2028 at 8% interest (two-year term); a $6 million note maturing March 2031 at 10% (five-year term); and $6.725 million in new Series B Convertible Preferred Shares at $0.25 each, set for mandatory conversion in February 2031 (or earlier per terms).

CEO Jon Levine called it a win: “We are pleased to successfully complete the restructuring, which meaningfully extends the maturity profile of the obligation and enhances our financial flexibility. By eliminating this 2026 obligation, we have strengthened our balance sheet and positioned the Company to focus on executing our growth initiatives. The obligation as restructured includes both unsecured debt at favorable market rates and an equity component with a conversion feature at a significant premium to current market.”

Details are in the Form 8-K filed today, available on MariMed’s IR site. For a multi-state operator with a knack for consumer packaged goods and retail, this move isn’t just debt juggling — it’s strategic yoga, stretching resources to chase expansion in a market that rewards the flexible.

As cannabis evolves, MariMed’s reset could be the calm before a profitable storm.

$TLRY ( ▼ 3.43% ) Buys More Beer

In the ever-fermenting world of beverages, Tilray Brands, Inc. (Nasdaq: TLRY; TSX: TLRY) just pulled off a deal that’s as bold as a double IPA.

Today the company announced the completion of its £33 million acquisition of key BrewDog assets: the global brand and IP, UK brewing operations, and 11 prime brewpubs across the UK and Ireland (think Birmingham, Canary Wharf, and Dublin). Separate talks are underway for BrewDog’s US and Australia holdings, expected to wrap in about 30 days.

Founded in 2007, BrewDog revolutionized craft beer with hits like Punk IPA, Hazy Jane, Lost Lager, and Wingman — turning a scrappy Scottish startup into a global icon. For Tilray, this isn’t just another round; it’s a strategic gulp into untapped markets, leveraging BrewDog’s distribution and hospitality to push Tilray’s own brands abroad.

CEO Irwin D. Simon poured on the enthusiasm: “BrewDog is one of the most iconic, mission-driven craft beer brands in the UK. It helped redefine modern craft beer through bold innovation... Our priority is to refocus BrewDog on the craft beer excellence that made it beloved and strategically invest to return the operations to profitable growth.”

The assets are projected to add ~$200 million in annual net revenue and $6–8 million in adjusted EBITDA, turning cash flow positive by fiscal 2027 post-integration. Tilray’s global beverage platform swells to ~$500 million, with total business hitting ~$1.2 billion — a diversified empire spanning beer, spirits, energy drinks, and cannabis.

With licensing timelines in play, Q4 fiscal 2026 EBITDA impact will be minimal, but the long game looks frothy: scaled international brewing, brewpub infrastructure, and cross-promotion potential. In a market thirsty for growth, Tilray just tapped a keg of opportunity.

🗞️ The News

📺 YouTube

Farm Bill Week: Congress Moves to Redefine Hemp | TTB Powered by Flowhub

What we will cover:

✅ In the latest Trade To Black podcast presented by Flowhub, host Shadd Dales and Anthony Varrell break down one of the most consequential federal cannabis stories of the year.

The U.S. Supreme Court is now hearing arguments in a case that directly impacts marijuana users and their Second Amendment rights. At issue: whether federal law banning firearm possession by cannabis consumers remains constitutional — even as rescheduling discussions continue under the Trump administration. The Department of Justice is defending the prohibition, creating a complex legal intersection between federal drug policy and constitutional rights.

What does this mean if cannabis moves to Schedule III? Would rescheduling automatically change gun ownership restrictions — or could the ban remain intact?

In Segment Two, Michael Bronstein, President of the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp, joins the show to preview this week’s Farm Bill negotiations. Congress is actively debating how hemp will be redefined — including language targeting intoxicating cannabinoids. What should operators and investors watch for?