## Facts

- North Dakota enacted a statutory scheme permitting regulated cultivation of “industrial hemp,” and David Monson and Wayne Hauge obtained state licenses to grow cannabis for industrial uses.
- Monson and Hauge planned to cultivate *Cannabis sativa L.* and sell parts of the harvested plant for industrial purposes.
- They asserted that low-THC “industrial hemp,” as defined by state law, should not be treated as “marihuana” under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
- They sought a federal declaratory judgment that cultivating industrial hemp in compliance with their state licenses “does not and will not violate” the CSA.
- The DEA and DOJ moved to dismiss; the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, concluding the plants fall within the CSA definition of “marihuana” and Congress may regulate the activity under the Commerce Clause.
- On appeal, the government also challenged justiciability and argued plaintiffs should have proceeded through CSA administrative mechanisms.

## Issues

1. Whether the declaratory judgment action presented an actual, ripe controversy and whether plaintiffs had standing to seek prospective relief before cultivating hemp.
2. Whether plaintiffs were required to pursue administrative remedies (e.g., registration or other agency processes) before filing suit.
3. Whether the CSA’s definition of “marihuana” encompasses state-licensed “industrial hemp” consisting of *Cannabis sativa L.*, despite low THC levels and an industrial (non-drug) purpose.
4. Whether Congress has Commerce Clause authority to regulate and prohibit intrastate cultivation of industrial hemp authorized by state law.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- The court held the dispute was justiciable: plaintiffs alleged a concrete plan to engage in conduct arguably prohibited by federal law and a credible risk of federal enforcement, supporting standing and ripeness.
- The court held plaintiffs were not required to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking declaratory relief.
- The court held the proposed crop fell within the CSA definition of “marihuana” because the statute covers “all parts” of *Cannabis sativa L.* subject only to specified exclusions, and the statute contains no low-THC or industrial-use exception for the plants plaintiffs intended to grow.
- Relying on *Gonzales v. Raich*, the court held Congress may regulate intrastate cultivation of cannabis as part of a comprehensive scheme controlling the interstate market in controlled substances.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff may seek declaratory relief when planned conduct is arguably prohibited by federal law and the plaintiff faces a credible threat of enforcement; the plaintiff need not await prosecution to establish standing and ripeness.
- Absent a specific statutory requirement, a declaratory judgment challenge to a statute’s application is not barred by a general exhaustion requirement.
- Under the CSA, “marihuana” includes “all parts” of the plant *Cannabis sativa L.* subject to enumerated exclusions; intended use and THC concentration do not create an extra-textual exemption for cultivating the plant itself.
- Under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate intrastate, even noncommercial, activities involving cannabis when doing so is a rational component of a comprehensive federal regime governing controlled substances and preventing diversion into illicit markets.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit held that state-licensed cultivation of low-THC industrial hemp made from *Cannabis sativa L.* is “marihuana” under the CSA and may be federally regulated and prohibited under the Commerce Clause, notwithstanding state authorization.


Monson v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 589 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2009)