Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Sumthin-Sumthin44692 t1_irjlr6q wrote

A commercial lease for the purpose of running a cannabis business is illegal under federal law. A lot of commercial leases have the business use/purpose expressly stated in them. But even if this one didn’t the court is not going to ignore what the lease was for. The court cannot enforce a contract, including rent, if it is for an illegal purpose.

Similar cases involve personal service contracts for “physical assistance” that are actually for sex. The court looks to how a contract actually functions. Not just how it appears to function.

18

plugubius t1_irjm9et wrote

>A commercial lease for the purpose of running a cannabis business is illegal under federal law.

I have asked repeatedly for someone to identify this law. I know of none. A prohibition on cannabis sales alone won't alter state contract law (which is what the federal court must apply here).

−14

plugubius t1_irjrzhz wrote

That law does not expressly preempt state contract law, and it would be very hard to argue that conflict preemption applies. It allows the Attorney General to seek a variety of criminal, civil, and administrative penalties. That power does not clearly conflict with a state's ability to decide contractual rights in the absence of the Attorney General's action, and it does not provide for any private enforcement. The scope of federal preemption in the drug context is very narrow.

−8

lorgskyegon t1_irk5wl7 wrote

The landlord can't ask a federal court to enforce a contract that is illegal under federal law.

6

PullDaLevaKronk t1_irk0xll wrote

Never made the argument. Just provided a reliable link to a mention of the law you were looking for.

5