Monson v. Drug Enforcement Administration

David Monson (plaintiff) and Wayne Hauge (plaintiff) were farmers who wanted to grow industrial hemp pursuant to a North Dakota law legalizing industrial-hemp cultivation. Monson and Hague filed a declaratory judgment action in federal district court seeking a declaration that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) did not prohibit the growth of industrial hemp pursuant to licenses issued by the North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner. Monson and Hague argued that drug-use cannabis was produced from the flowers and leaves of certain strains of the plant, whereas industrial-use cannabis was generally produced from the stalks and seeds of separate strains of the plant. All cannabis plants contain tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the chemical that gives marijuana its psychoactive properties. However, cannabis plants grown for drug use contain a higher concentration of THC than cannabis plants grown for industrial use. Because of these differences, Monson and Hague argued that industrial hemp was not cannabis for purposes of the CSA. The Drug Enforcement Administration (defendant) and the Department of Justice (defendant) filed a motion to dismiss. The district court granted the motion, concluding that Monson and Hauge’s complaint had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court determined, among other things, that the cannabis plants Monson and Hauge planned to cultivate fell within the CSA’s definition of marijuana and were thus subject to CSA regulation. Monson and Hauge appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Monson and Hauge argued that the district court had erred by failing to accept as true all of the allegations in their complaint, including their assertion that the industrial-hemp plant was useless as drug-use marijuana.