54
34
76
16 Ginsburg v. ICC Holdings, LLC, 2017 WL 5467688 at *8 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2017).
Several other federal courts have joined the Tarr court. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas reached a similar conclusion regarding the uniqueness of cannabis operations under state law, indicating such situations require “nuanced approaches to the illegal contract defense, taking into account such considerations as avoidance of windfalls or forfeitures, deterrence of illegal conduct, and relative moral culpability.”16 In Mann v. Gullickson, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California quoted Green Earth heavily in explaining that “federal policy regarding enforcement of the [Controlled Substances Act] has been less than clear since 2009.”17 These courts
took a flexible approach to the illegal contract defense, noting that it would be odd to
allow a party that freely contracted
to provide a cannabis-related
product, service, or investment to
later avoid its obligations by
arguing the contract it signed
was illegal under federal law.
92