TOPIC

At the same time Project Four 2029 works with the executive branch on policy changes, it also plans to file lawsuits challenging the federal government's authority in this area.

One lawsuit will argue that the federal government cannot tell states what qualifies as "medical" treatment within their own borders. Under an originalist view of the Constitution, states have the authority to create the medical systems they believe are best for their residents. Project Four 2029 will argue that the federal government should not decide what medical treatments a state may recognize when those activities take place entirely within that state. 

A similar states-rights strategy was attempted in litigation brought by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, but Project Four 2029 believes that case started from the wrong position. It was doomed from the start. Instead of relying on commercial cannabis businesses as plaintiffs, this strategy would focus on patients and medical professionals whose personal stories may present a stronger constitutional case.

A second legal strategy would focus on personal possession instead of the sale or manufacture of marijuana. Under an originalist view of the Constitution, Project Four 2029 will argue that the federal government has limited authority to regulate what a person privately possesses. Justice Clarence Thomas expressed a similar concern in his concurrence in U.S. v. Hemani, a Second Amendment case involving marijuana and firearm possession.