THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 32 | MAY 2025 compliance of a licensee (or purported licensee) to protect property from being seized in a forfeiture and then having to undergo the expenses of litigating defenses. Another solution would be to pass the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act, which would explicitly recognize state cannabis laws by amending the Controlled Substances Act to provide that it “shall not apply to any person acting in compliance with State law relating to the manufacturer, production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of marihuana.”33 The bill would also prohibit civil asset forfeitures where compliance with state law is shown; however, it would still be open for interpretation whether strict compliance or substantial compliance standards should apply. Regardless, the passage of this legislation would mean that medical marijuana businesses need not rely on Congress continuing to extend the yearly appropriations rider and would effectively make the rider’s protection against federal prosecution permanent. CONCLUSION The only complete solution to the conflicts outlined above would be a total descheduling and decriminalization of marijuana at the federal level. However, as this appears highly unlikely for the foreseeable future, it is incumbent upon medical marijuana licensees and commercial property owners to use all available means to ensure that assets are not used in furtherance of illicit activities and that regulatory compliance is maintained. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Orion A. Strand is an associate attorney with the firm of McAtee & Woods in Oklahoma City and focuses his practice on first party insurance defense, personal injury and general commercial litigation. ENDNOTES 1. 18 U.S.C. §981 et seq. 2. Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-235, §538, 128 Stat. 2130, 2217 (2014). 3. James M. Cole, “Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement,” Aug. 29, 2013. 4. Lisa N. Sacco, et al., “The Federal Status of Marijuana and the Policy Gap with the States,” Congressional Research Service (updated May 2, 2024); Kyle Jaeger, “One Year After Jeff Sessions Rescinded a Federal Marijuana Memo, The Sky Hasn’t Fallen,” Marijuana Moment (Jan. 4, 2019), http://bit.ly/4jcbcp9. 5. United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163, 1174 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211, 220-24, 131 S.Ct. 2355, 2011). 6. Id. at 1179. 7. Id. 8. United States v. Bilodeau, 24 F.4th 705, 713 (1st Cir. 2022). 9. Id. at 712. 10. Id. at 713. 11. Id. at 714. 12. Id. at 715. 13. United States v. Sirois, 119 F.4th 143, 147 (1st Cir. 2024) (cert. denied 24-875, 2025 WL 951161) (U.S. Mar. 31, 2025). 14. Id. at 153. 15. Id. at 159. 16. See von Hofe v. U.S., 492 F.3d 175 (2nd Cir. 2007) (action for civil forfeiture of primary residence allegedly used to grow marijuana). 17. 18 U.S.C. §981 et seq. 18. 18 U.S.C. §983 (c)(2). 19. Id. 20. 18 U.S.C. §983(d)((2)(A)(i)-(ii). 21. See Congressional Research Service, “Marijuana Banking: Legal Issues and the SAFE(R) Banking Acts,” LSB11076, https://bit.ly/42W8AWf (Nov. 15, 2023). 22. See, e.g., United States v. $92,203.00 in U.S. Currency, 537 F.3d 504 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. $149,442.43 in U.S. Currency, 965 F.2d 868 (10th Cir. 1992). 23. United States v. 16328 South 43rd East Ave., Bixby, Tulsa County, Okla., 275 F.3d 1281, 1284-1285 (quoting United States v. Four Million, Two Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand, 762 F.2d 895, 907 (11th Cir. 1985) (internal quotations omitted, emphasis in original)). 24. Id., (quoting United States v. One Parcel of Prop. Located at 755 Forest Rd., 985 F.2d 70, 72-73 (2d Cir.1993) (internal quotations omitted)). 25. 41 O.S. §127(8). 26. 18 U.S.C. §983(d)(2)(A)(ii). 27. 18 U.S.C. §983(d)(2)(B)(i)(I-II). 28. Benjamin Franklin, Pennsylvania Gazette, (Feb. 4, 1735). 29. James Madison, Federal Papers No. 45, The Alleged Danger from the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered (Jan. 26, 1788). 30. 21 U.S.C. §903. 31. United States v. Bilodeau, 24 F.4th 705, 714 (1st Cir. 2022). 32. Summary: H.R. 1525 – 118th Congress (2023-2024) available at https://bit.ly/4j4wYM9. 33. S. 3032, §710(d) 115th Congress, 2d Session (introduced June 7, 2018). Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==