Native American Tribes

Tribal CannabisOver the past couple of years, we have written about tribal cannabis and the efforts by various tribes in Oregon, Washington and elsewhere to roll out marijuana programs. Last week, at the Cannabis Law & Policy course I teach, we had the great pleasure of hosting Pi-Ta Pitt from the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs here in Oregon. Mr. Pitt is the tribe’s Cannabis Program Coordinator, and he offered some valuable insights for tribes rolling out cannabis programs. Based on that discussion, here are some key takeaways for tribes.

  1. The Wilkinson Memo is still in effect, and confusing as ever.

Way back in October of 2014, the federal Department of Justice issued its “Policy Statement Regarding Marijuana Issues in Indian Policy.” Like the Cole Memo before it, the Wilkinson memo provides that eight enumerated federal priorities “will guide United States Attorneys’ marijuana enforcement efforts in Indian County,” including where “sovereign Indian Nations seek to legalize the cultivation or use of marijuana in Indian Country.” It all comes back to prosecutorial discretion, and the current administration has yet to comment on the Wilkinson Memo specifically.

In the past few years, federal attorneys have watched warily as Warm Springs and other tribes have explored the cannabis space. While these attorneys have seemed tolerant, to an extent, of the tribal initiatives, the take on cannabis events on tribal lands seems to have touched a federal nerve. Because events are disfavored, tribes looking to legalize cannabis production and sale may wish to steer the focus away from festivities.

  1. Tribes subject to Public Law 280 have a tougher go.

Public Law 280 is a federal statute allowing states to “assume jurisdiction over reservation Indians.” The Act mandated a transfer of federal law enforcement authority within tribal nations to state governments in six states: California, Minnesota (except the Red Lake Nation), Nebraska, Oregon (except the Warm Springs Reservation), Wisconsin (except the Menominee Indian Reservation), and, upon its statehood, Alaska. Other states were allowed to elect similar transfers of power if the affected Indian tribes consented. Since 1953, Nevada, South Dakota, Washington, Florida, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Arizona, Iowa and Utah all have assumed some jurisdiction over crimes committed by tribal members on tribal lands.

Tribes not subject to Public Law 280 don’t have to worry about states attempting to shutter their cannabis programs. Although it may behoove those tribes to have good relationships with their neighboring states, local enforcement is not a possibility – even if the adjacent states are anti-cannabis. Tribes subject to Public Law 280, however, may face immediate local barriers, in the form of law enforcement.

  1. Conversations are key.

Even where Public Law 280 is not at play, it is critical for tribes to dialogue with the states, along with federal officials. The Warm Springs Tribe and the Suquamish Tribe, for example, each have entered into an inter-governmental compact with Washington and Oregon, respectively, regarding their cannabis efforts. This is critical for any distribution of pot off of the reservation, which is where the tribes stand to reap significant economic benefit, but also where states regulate cannabis commerce extensively.

Federal conversations may be even more important. Most tribes already are very familiar with local U.S. attorneys, but conversations around the topic of legalizing cannabis are unique. Any tribe considering a cannabis program would be wise to dialogue with the relevant U.S. attorneys, and to get a read on how that office may respond. To this point, U.S. attorneys may view a tribal program as more “legitimate” if the program is borne of a referendum taken within the tribe itself. And that’s yet another, local conversation.

  1. This could go any number of ways.

Twists and turns are inevitable during the design and implementation of a sovereign’s cannabis program. It happens with states; it happens with tribes. Like states, tribes need to maintain flexibility and build coalitions as they attempt to launch a pot venture. Tribes also need to be realistic about timelines and the roles of current collaborators. For example, what will the tribe’s current bank or credit union think of the effort? What about its other stakeholders?

In all, cannabis can be incredibly attractive to tribes as a revenue source and job creator – especially to those tribes on resource-poor land, and to tribes far from interstate highway corridors, which are unable to contemplate casinos or tourism. In all, cannabis may present a unique opportunity for certain tribes, given the right approach.

Cannabis laws on public eventsI’ve said it before and I’ll say it again–more state regulation of marijuana is going to lead to fewer and fewer cannabis cups and similar marijuana events and this in turn will force the purveyors of such events to get creative. Case in point: the 2017 High Times Cannabis Cup on the Moapa Band of Paiutes reservation in Nevada near Las Vegas. The most recent update on this particular Cup is that despite receiving two warning letters from U.S. Attorney David Bogden, the Tribe is moving forward this Saturday with the Cup as planned.

The High Times Cannabis Cup, and others like it, revolve around events that assess the cannabis and cannabis products submitted to them by local competitors. At their core, these cups are commercial boons for the sponsors who use them to increase their brand recognition and for the local marijuana businesses that perform well and can use their good performances to tout their products for months and years down the road. Having the right to label your cannabis products as a “High Times Best In (fill in the blank)” is not an honor to be taken lightly in the marijuana industry where such accolades can and do influence cannabis buying decisions.

Even cannabis-friendly states have myriad prohibitions against selling or even gifting cannabis without specific state operational licenses. And virtually all states prohibit consuming cannabis in public and even quasi-private spaces. For example, High Times had to cancel its cannabis cup in Seattle in 2015 because such an event would have violated Washington State’s “sampling” laws that allow only state-licensed marijuana businesses and not consumers to “sample” cannabis products. High Times also had to cancel its Cup in both Denver and Pueblo, Colorado last year because Colorado restricts public cannabis consumption. I assume High Times chose to host this upcoming event on Moapa tribal lands because Nevada’s medical marijuana laws would not allow for such an event and because the Tribe can enact its own ordinances allowing for such Cups.

Given the Wilkinson statement regarding Tribal cannabis from and the Cole Memo regarding federal enforcement of its cannabis laws, it’s easy to see why the Moapa Indians are trying their hand at hosting this Cup. Nonetheless, tribes that have tried to legalize or “medicalize” marijuana on their lands have been met with mixed reactions and enforcement by the federal government (see here, here, here, here, and here). The Moapa are no exception.

On February 16th and 23rd, U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden sent “warning letters” to the Tribe concerning this upcoming cannabis cup, reiterating that marijuana remains federally illegal and that the Tribe has an “incorrect interpretation” of the Cole Memo and Wilkinson statement. Bogden’s letters also reminded the Tribe that neither the Cole Memo nor the Wilkinson statement alter the power of the federal government to enforce federal laws on tribal lands. At no point in his February 16th letter did Bogden threaten to shut down the Cup. But Bogden’s February 23rd letter states that his office communicated with tribal officials and his understanding is that no cannabis or cannabis products will be present at the Cup. He also writes that High Times’ promotion of this event mentions nothing about the prohibition on cannabis and he asks the Tribe to confirm their understanding on this prohibition matches his. Given that the heart of these High Times Cannabis Cups are the competitions for best cannabis products, one has to wonder if there’s any advantage to High Times having the Cup on tribal lands at this point.

Since Bogden’s warning letters come on the heels of White House press secretary Sean Spicer’s comments about the likelihood for increased federal enforcement in states with recreational marijuana programs, many are wondering if Bogden’s actions are the beginning of what “increased enforcement” may look like. We do not believe so; we think this federal intervention is just another example of the Department of Justice’s continued unpredictable treatment of tribes and cannabis and its varying regional positions on cannabis.

Time will surely tell…

Tribal CannabisIn December, 2014, the Department of Justice stated it would not prosecute federal laws regulating the growing or selling of marijuana on tribal lands, even in states where cannabis is illegal. Monty Wilkinson, Director for the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, authored the statement, and it seemed to give Tribes the opportunity to become cannabis players because of their unique sovereign status. Though the Wilkinson Statement did not constitute a change of laws or a repeal of the federal Controlled Substances Act, most of what it means is that the eight enforcement priorities outlined in Cole Memo, in addition to consultation with tribal leaders, would guide U.S. Attorneys’ enforcement of federal marijuana laws on tribal lands.

However, as noted in Is Tribal Cannabis Still Possible, the Feds, haven’t really taken the Wilkinson Statement to heart when it comes to tribes that (1) have tried to engage in some aspect of the cannabis industry without entering into a compact with the states; and that (2) are not located in states with some form of robustly regulated marijuana laws. Continue Reading Menominee Hemp Lawsuit Goes Up in Smoke

The Puyallup Tribe joins ranks with the Squaxin Island and Suquamish Tribes by signing a compact with the State of Washington to engage in Washington’s marijuana industry. This time though the Puyallup Tribe is not going for the production, processing, or retailing of marijuana; the Tribe is going to be a marijuana testing facility (for now).

Photo by Edward Curtis, of tribal leaders
     Edward Curtis photo of tribal leaders

The Tribe recently purchased the Trans-Pacific Trade Center at 3700 Pacific Highway E. in the City of Fife with plans to convert this building into a cancer-treatment center. The Tribe’s lab (which will join the 14 other state-certified testing labs) will be owned and operated by PTOI Testing Lab, Inc., which will offer “safety and potency tests to holders of state marijuana licenses, among others.” Other clients could include universities conducting scientific research on marijuana. Rather than pursuing recreational marijuana economic development, the Puyallup Tribe is highly focused on developing medical marijuana.

Under the compact (a copy of which can be found at the bottom of this article), PTOI Testing Lab, Inc. is authorized to do only one thing: “operation of a commercial testing lab that will for a fee conduct scientific and safety testing services for substances including cannabis.” The compact also mandates that the Tribe will meet existing certified testing criteria, testing traceability, and quality assurance testings standards as set forth in WAC 314-55-102 and 103, and it will submit to state inspections pending a head’s up to Tribal police beforehand.

The compact mentions nothing about the Puyallup Tribe engaging in the production, processing, and/or retailing of cannabis. And though the Suquamish and Squaxin Island compacts make concessions for the Tribes’ commercial medical marijuana activity, no such liberties are currently listed in the Puyallup compact. Specifically, the Suquamish and Squaxin Island compacts allow those Tribes to sell medical cannabis in concert with medical treatment on their tribal lands without assessing any tribal tax (unless the Tribes opt to implement one). Nonetheless, the Puyallup compact stipulates that:

The Parties anticipate that they will later amend this Compact to add other elements of the broader subject area of marijuana to the agreement, in order to ensure a lawful and well-regulated marijuana market, encourage economic development in Indian Country, and provide fiscal benefits to both the Tribe and the State.

Ultimately, the Puyallup compact leaves the door open for the Tribe to later seek to incorporate provisions regarding the cultivation, processing, and/or retailing of cannabis. Though it has been a mixed bag for Tribes regarding federal intervention with tribal marijuana in states that have no or very loose state marijuana regulations, thus far those Washington Tribes that have signed compacts with the State of Washington haven’t had any issues with Big Brother. The main question for Washington Tribes continues to be what happens with the Feds if a Tribe goes outside the state compact system to set up its own marijuana regime? We have yet to find out.

For more on the development of tribal marijuana, check out the following:

 

 

Last week, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs became the first Tribe in Oregon to announce that it would be growing and selling cannabis on its tribal lands. We’ve seen other Tribes try (and fail) to do the same thing. And we’ve seen other Tribes enter state compacts to grow and sell marijuana. But this is the first Tribe (of which we are aware) in a state with robust marijuana regulations forego a marijuana compact and enter the marijuana industry with self-created regulations. So, Warm Springs represents a new twist for tribal marijuana.

Tribal cannabis. There still remain many questions.
Tribal cannabis. There still remain many questions. (Photo by Dennis Brekke, http://bit.ly1ml594M)

In December, 2014, the Department of Justice stated it would not prosecute federal laws regulating the growing or selling of marijuana on tribal lands, even when state law bans the drug. Monty Wilkinson, Director for the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, authored the statement, and it seemed to give Tribes the opportunity to become cannabis players because of their unique sovereign status. Though the statement never constituted a change of law or a repeal of the Federal Controlled Substances Act, it would mean that the eight enforcement priorities outlined in Cole Memo, in addition to consultation with tribal leaders, would guide U.S. Attorneys’ enforcement of federal marijuana laws on tribal lands.

Despite the DOJ’s new position on tribal marijuana, Tribes that attempted to self-regulate their marijuana operations received mixed treatment from federal law enforcement. The Pit River Raid by the Feds in July 2015, the Feds’ seizure of an entire crop belonging to the Menominee Tribe in Wisconsin in October 2015, and the November 2015 suspension and destruction of an entire growing operation on the lands belonging to the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota (at the behest of the Feds) all seem to indicate the “Wilkinson Statement” is meaningless. All of these tribes though are in states with little to no legalized cannabis regulation. Contrast that  with the Suquamish and Squaxin Tribes, both of which inked a marijuana compact with the State of Washington, and have been allowed to move forward with their marijuana operations without federal intervention.

Since Oregon, like Washington, almost certainly qualifies as a state with robust regulations in line with the 2013 Cole Memo, we would expect the DOJ to treat the Warm Springs Tribe the same way it has treated the two Washington tribes that have legalized. But Warm Springs has no marijuana compact in place and so we do at least have to wonder whether that will matter to the Feds given its enforcement history.

Washington State passed legislation that any Tribe wanting to participate in its recreational marijuana marketplace had to sign a compact with the state to do so. Oregon has no such legislation, but reportedly Warm Springs will meet with officials in the Governor’s Office “. . . to hash out the conditions under which the enterprise will operate.” So, maybe we will see a compact after all, which would probably make sense given how the Feds have behaved to date.

All of this also raises the question as to whether having a state compact is the only way Tribes can participate in the cannabis industry without federal intervention. Based on what we have seen so far and based on our discussions with the DOJ on behalf of our own tribal cannabis clients, we think the answer is probably yes.

But stay tuned.

In 2014, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an enforcement memo addressing how Tribes can fit into marijuana legalization. Though that memo neither legalizes marijuana for Tribes nor makes any changes to federal drug laws, it states that Tribes will essentially be given a pass, like states, to legalize marijuana in accordance with current DOJ marijuana enforcement priorities.

Why then have so many Tribal marijuana experiments been met with DOJ resistance? Is the DOJ treating Tribes more harshly than it treats the states? Or is it that so many Tribes have failed to comply with the tenets of the federal tribal marijuana memo?  It’s some of both.

The DOJ tribal memo provides as follows:

“Indian Country includes numerous reservations and tribal lands with diverse sovereign governments, many of which traverse state borders and federal districts. Given this, the United States Attorneys recognize that effective federal law enforcement in Indian Country, including marijuana enforcement, requires consultation with our tribal partners in the districts and flexibility to confront the particular, yet sometimes divergent, public safety issues that can exist on any single reservation.

“Consistent with the Attorney General’s 2010 Indian Country Initiative, in evaluating marijuana enforcement activities in Indian Country, each United States Attorney should consult with the affected tribes on a government-to-government basis.”

This memo sounds like the DOJ is open to working with Tribes seeking to legalize marijuana by following the eight enforcement priorities set out in the 2013 Cole Memo. In other words, so long as a Tribe first consults with the appropriate U.S. attorneys regarding its plans for legalization or decriminalization and so long as that Tribe’s plans include the “robust regulations” required by the Cole Memo, one ought to be able to assume that the DOJ would allow that Tribe to legalize, just as so many states have done with both recreational and medical marijuana.But that has not happened in the real world.

First, there was the Pit River raid in July of this year. In that case, federal government authorities, including the DEA and special agents with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), raided cannabis cultivation operations on the Alturas Indian Rancheria and the XL Ranch in Modoc County, California. According to U.S. Attorney press-release, “[t]he search warrants are part of an ongoing investigation relating to the financing and management of the commercial marijuana-cultivation projects.” In a U.S. Attorney affidavit we can see what went into the raid itself.

Tribal Marijuana in AmericaSo, why the raid? California’s existing cannabis regulations are not “robust” and therefore do not meet the standards of the Cole Memo, and the DOJ probably believed these Tribal cannabis operations were simply “too big” for the DOJ to ignore. Most importantly, it appears as though the Tribe never received the required U.S. Attorney approval for its operations. There also appears to have been questionable non-Native American financiers involved with the Tribal grows, which is probably yet another reason why the DOJ believed it could not just sit back. Lastly, proposed traceability and accountability of the Tribe’s plants and products also did not appear to meet DOJ enforcement priorities for a grow of this large size.

Second, there was, in late October of this year, the federal government raid of a grow belonging to the Menominee Tribe in Wisconsin, wherein the government seized some 30,000 cannabis plants. This grow was allegedly made up of only industrial hemp and not marijuana plants capable of producing active THC. Menominee Tribal leaders maintain that “. . . the plants were intended for lawful research into growing industrial hemp, which is processed and utilized for fiber, food and oil and is distinguishable from marijuana by its lower levels of the high-inducing compound tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).” Though federal law prohibits cultivating hemp without a DEA permit, the Menominee were cultivating their hemp in cooperation with the College of the Menominee Nation, in line with the federal Farm Bill of 2014.

The twist with the Menominee raid is that, unlike the Pit River raid, the Menominee Tribe was engaged in active and reciprocal dialogue with BIA, the local cops, and an assistant U.S. attorney. These law enforcement authorities were aware of the Menominee’s hemp-growing plans and presumably had not taken issue with those plans until a BIA employee and local police inspected the operation and took plant samples. The affidavit in this raid states that, in addition to witnessing “individuals appearing to be non-native” and a Colorado-based consultant aiding the Tribe, the plant samples tested positive for the “presumptive indication” of marijuana.

Third, and just last week, the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota made headlines by legalizing marijuana with big plans to develop a medical marijuana-friendly resort on its lands and then suspending its growing operations and burning its entire crop, citing concerns about criminal prosecution if it didn’t. Apparently, state and federal officials reviewed the Tribe’s business plans and determined that “. . . any changes in tribal law would only affect tribal members, therefore, non-tribal members ingesting marijuana on the reservation risked prosecution under state law. . . [a]lso according to state officials, any non-tribal member returning to state land with marijuana in their system were violating state law, and thus, also subject to prosecution.” South Dakota Attorney General Mart Jackley told the media that the Tribe’s decision to suspend its cannabis project was “in the best interest of both tribal and non-tribal members,” but also promised to help the Tribe move forward with alternative cannabis plans. The Tribe is saying that, next time, it will use a more “calculated approach” to cannabis.

What are the takeaways from these three raids? First off, the Tribes must do their utmost to coordinate (in advance) their cannabis plans with any and all relevant local, state, and federal officials. Second, their cannabis regime must closely hew the line with the various federal memos on what constitutes the sort of cannabis regime required for the Feds to keep their hands off. Third, the Tribes should do what they can to minimize direct involvement by non-Tribal members, especially those who are not Native-Americans and especially those with questionable (criminal) pasts. Our opinion is that Tribes that closely abide by these three things will fare far better than those who do not, and there are a number of Tribes out there working on doing exactly that.

At this point, we preach patience.

4th Annual Marijuana Business Conference & ExpoCanna Law Group’s lead government relations attorney will be speaking this Friday at the Marijuana Business Daily 4th Annual Expo in Las Vegas as part of the Tribal Marijuana: Emerging Opportunities & the Impacts on Established Businesses panelRobert Odawi Porter will be on this same panel. Earlier this year, our law firm partnered with Robert in putting on the first ever tribal cannabis seminar, which brought nearly 500 people and 60 different tribes to Washington State in February of this year.

We have written extensively on on the intersection between tribal and federal laws as they relate to cannabis businesses that are looking to partner with tribes (click here for our tribal cannabis posts). The tribal cannabis landscape is shifting on nearly a daily basis. Though opportunities abound for tribal cannabis businesses, it is critical that all legal systems be in place before moving forward. Just a few days ago, the Flandreau Santee Sioux tribe, who had previously made a splash by announcing it would build the nation’s first-ever cannabis resort, burned its entire cannabis crop in an effort to forestall federal intervention. And this news comes on the heels of several high-profile raids on tribal cannabis operations in California—the Alturas Indian Rancheria and Pit River Tribe in July, and the Pinoleville Pomo Nation Rancheria in September.

This talk will be on how tribes and businesses can seize opportunities in the cannabis industry while sidestepping potential risks by developing responsible, comprehensive regulatory frameworks.

If you are considering opportunities in the tribal cannabis space, this is the one panel you should not miss. We hope to see you there.

Tribal Marijuana in CaliforniaOdawi Law PLLC and Canna Law Group are teaming up to discuss the future of marijuana on tribal lands in California in wake of the raids on the Alturas Indian Rancheria and the Pit River Tribe in July and on the Pinoleville Pomo Nation Rancheria in September.

The July 7, 2015 raid in Modoc County, conducted by state and federal law enforcement, resulted in the seizure of 12,000 marijuana plants that had allegedly been cultivated by the tribes in partnership with a Canadian developer previously convicted of marijuana-related crimes.

“Large-scale commercial marijuana grows on tribal lands have the potential to introduce quantities of marijuana in a manner that violates federal law, is not consistent with California’s Compassionate Use Act, and undermines locally enacted marijuana regulations,” said the U.S. Attorney’s office of the raid.

These raids have understandably made California tribes increasingly reluctant to enter an already challenging marijuana business landscape. Marijuana remains federally illegal to manufacture, deliver, or possess. California’s Compassionate Use Act is a masterwork in legislative vagueness. And California is a Public Law 280 state, meaning that  the federal government has authorized state law enforcement to enforce state criminal law on tribal lands.

The Tribal Marijuana in California Conference will provide guidance through California’s soon to be promising yet presently rocky marijuana landscape, and will address hard-pressing issues: How can tribal leaders best self-govern on marijuana issues, especially following the Alturas and Pit River raids? What can tribes do to ensure consistency with rapidly evolving federal, state, and local laws regulating marijuana? Should tribal governments become more involved in the political process to protect tribal sovereignty to regulate marijuana? Should California tribes organize to protect tribal sovereignty to regulate marijuana?

Speakers include Robert Odawi Porter, a former president of the Seneca Nation and leading attorney on protecting American Indian tribal government sovereignty and treaty rights; Robert McVay, business attorney of the Canna Law Group, and Marc Burgat, a senior advisor with Dentons with extensive experience in public policy, government, politics, and business advocacy.

For a full overview of The Tribal Marijuana in California conference material, and to purchase tickets, please visit this Eventbrite page. General Admission is $200, with special discounts for tribal citizens and members, as well as tribal government officials. For more information on special tribal offers, please contact Madeline Williams at 206.224.5657 or events@harrisbricken.com.

The conference is set for Monday, October 5, 2015 from 12:30pm to 5pm at the Embassy Suites Sacramento-Riverfront Promenade. Tickets are also available for purchase at the door.

Tribal Marijuana CompactThe Suquamish Tribe and the State of Washington recently signed and entered into the first ever marijuana compact to allow a Native American Tribe to cultivate, process, and sell marijuana within a state’s highly regulated marijuana system. The Tribe’s own marijuana regulations have not been disclosed to the public. We previously blogged about how Washington was the first state to adopt a compacting system for tribes and regulated marijuana, but this signed compact reveals more about what tribes can expect when they “partner” with Washington state on cannabis.

The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board negotiated the compact with the Suquamish Tribe on behalf of the state. In the compact, the state gives its own interpretation of the Wilkinson statement, writing that “[t]hat memo effectively treats tribal governments the same as state governments in the decision to legalize marijuana.” The compact also describes the existing state of cannabis on Suquamish land:

“After serious deliberation, the Tribe, as a sovereign nation, has also determined that present day circumstances make a complete ban of marijuana within Indian Country ineffective and unrealistic and has decriminalized its sale and possession in certain circumstances. At the same time, consistent with the federal priorities, the need still exists for strict regulation and control over the production, processing, delivery, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana in Indian Country.”

The state and the Tribe signed the compact “to strengthen their ability to … provide a framework for cooperation to ensure a robust tribal and state regulatory and enforcement system sufficient to meet the federal priorities.”

Here are some highlights from the compact: Continue Reading The Suquamish Marijuana Compact: First in the State, First in the Nation

The Oregon Tribal Cannabis Seminar is tomorrow
The Oregon Tribal Cannabis Seminar is tomorrow

Tomorrow at the Oregon Convention Center in Portland, Oregon, Robert McVay of our law firm will be speaking on cannabis issues as they relate to Native American Tribes. Robert will be doing so as part of this Law Seminars International seminar: Tribal Participation in the Cannabis Industry: Current Legal, Regulatory, Sovereignty, Cultural, And Business Issues; Opportunities And Pitfalls. If you cannot make it to Portland to attend in person, you can attend via webinar.

Robert (who is dual-licensed in Washington and Oregon and splits his time between our Seattle and our Portland offices) will be speaking on “Section 17 Corporations, Tribal securities, investment, and banking issues; taxation and the treatment of cannabis income under IRS 280E.”

Robert Odawi Porter also will be speaking at this event. Porter, a leading tribal law expert, will be speaking on “Public Law 280; state regulation and taxation of reservation activity; states that regulate recreational and/or medical marijuana vs. states where possession of small amounts is a civil penalty or where possession remains a crime.” Our firm teams up with Robert Porter on tribal cannabis issues and together we jointly (no pun intended) put on the first tribal cannabis seminar earlier this year.

We have written extensively on this blog regarding the intersection between tribal and federal laws as they relate to cannabis and on the issues with which tribes are having to contend as they decide what to do with cannabis on their lands. This page has a compilation of those articles.

We hope to see you at the Oregon Convention Center tomorrow.