## Facts

- The Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin enacted a tribal ordinance in May 2015 authorizing licensed cultivation of “industrial hemp” on reservation lands (≤ 0.3% delta-9 THC).
- The Tribe partnered with the College of Menominee Nation, an institution of higher education, to conduct research on hemp cultivation and licensed the College to grow hemp on tribal lands.
- Federal agents, led by the Drug Enforcement Administration, raided reservation lands and seized and destroyed the hemp crop.
- The Tribe filed a federal declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that its hemp cultivation was lawful under § 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. § 5940) and therefore not prohibited by the Controlled Substances Act.
- The Tribe also argued it should be treated as a “State” for purposes of § 5940 or, alternatively, that hemp cultivation on the reservation satisfied the requirement that cultivation be “allowed under the laws” of Wisconsin.
- The Government moved to dismiss, arguing the § 5940 exception did not apply; the Tribe cross-moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether an Indian tribe qualifies as a “State” within the meaning of 7 U.S.C. § 5940.
2. Whether hemp cultivation on tribal reservation land was “allowed under the laws of the State” of Wisconsin under 7 U.S.C. § 5940 when Wisconsin had not affirmatively authorized hemp cultivation.

## Decision

- The court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss and denied the Tribe’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court held the Tribe is not a “State” within the meaning of 7 U.S.C. § 5940.
- The court held the § 5940 condition requiring that hemp cultivation be “allowed under the laws of the State” was not met because Wisconsin had not enacted a law authorizing industrial hemp cultivation.
- Because the Tribe’s activity did not fall within § 5940’s limited exception, the declaratory judgment action was dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory exception to the Controlled Substances Act created by 7 U.S.C. § 5940 is limited to cultivation by an institution of higher education or a state department of agriculture for research purposes, and only when cultivation is allowed under the relevant state’s laws.
- Federal statutes using the term “State” do not include Indian tribes absent clear congressional language; courts will not treat tribes as “States” by implication to expand a statutory exemption.
- The phrase “allowed under the laws of the State” requires affirmative authorization under state law; the condition is not satisfied merely because state prohibitions may not apply to tribal lands in the same manner as off-reservation.
- Federal law may incorporate state-law authorization as a benchmark even in contexts involving tribal lands.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the Tribe’s suit, concluding that § 5940 did not protect the hemp project because the Tribe was not a “State” under the statute and Wisconsin law had not affirmatively allowed industrial hemp cultivation, leaving the activity subject to federal drug-law enforcement.


Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. Drug Enf't Admin., 190 F. Supp. 3d 843 (E.D. Wis. 2016)