Opinion
1612-20
09-02-2022
DANIEL MESKIN & KARI MESKIN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
PATRICK J. URDA JUDGE
This case is before the Court on the motion for summary judgment [Doc. 7 and motion for judgment on the pleadings [Doc. 15] filed by petitioners, Daniel and Kari Meskin. We will deny each of the motions.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times. "Doc." references are to the documents in the record as numbered by the Clerk of this Court.
After the Meskins filed their motion for summary judgment, the Court informally held the matter in abeyance at the behest of the parties. [Doc. 14.] The Court has consulted with the parties and will proceed to the disposition of this motion.
The Meskins move for summary judgment on the grounds that (1) Congress exceeded its authority under the Sixteenth Amendment in adopting section 280E [Doc. 7 at 5-12] and (2) section 280E is unconstitutional in that it violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibitions against excessive fines and penalties [id. at 12-23]. This Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, to which an appeal from this case would ordinarily lie, see § 7482(b)(1)(B), have rejected these arguments. See, e.g., N. Cal. Small Bus. Assistants Inc. v. Commissioner, 153 T.C. 65 (2019); Standing Akimbo, LLC v. United States, 955 F.3d 1146, 1157 n.7 (10th Cir. 2020); Alpenglow Botanicals, LLC v. United States, 894 F.3d 1187, 1198-1203 (10th Cir. 2018). Given our clear precedent (as well as the decisions of the Tenth Circuit directly on-point), we will not revisit these matters. See Today's Health Care II LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2021-96, at *7; cf. Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 757 (1970), aff'd, 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971) (stating that we generally "follow a Court of Appeals decision which is squarely on point where appeal from our decision lies to that Court of Appeals.").
In their motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Meskins assert that the "federal government's current regulation of intrastate production and sales of cannabis is no longer necessary and proper under the Commerce Clause." [Doc. 15 at 7.] Although the Meskins recognize that the Supreme Court ruled to the contrary in Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), they contend that the reasoning in Raich has been hollowed out by factual and legal developments, including the proliferation of state-sanctioned marijuana businesses (introducing new federalism questions), subsequent Commerce Clause jurisprudence, and the statement of Justice Thomas in Standing Akimbo v. United States¸ 141 S.Ct. 2236 (2021), where the Supreme Court declined to review the Tenth Circuit's decision cited above.
The Supreme Court has advised lower courts, however, that "[i]f a precedent of [the Supreme Court] has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the [lower courts] should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to [the Supreme Court] the prerogative of overruling its own decisions." Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989); see also Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 237 (1997); United States v. Cox, 906 F.3d 1170, 1183 (10th Cir. 2018). Raich directly controls the question here, and we accordingly will follow it unless and until the Supreme Court sees fit to overrule its previous decision.
It is therefore
ORDERED that petitioners' motion for summary judgment, filed January 14, 2021, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that petitioners' motion for judgment on the pleadings, filed March 4, 2022, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that the parties shall contact the undersigned's Chambers at (202)521-0800, no later than September 9, 2022, for the purpose of scheduling a conference call to discuss further proceedings in this case.