NORML Urges Appeals Court to Revisit Curaleaf $31.8M Verdict Ruling

NORML Asks the Court to Take a Second Look

NORML urged a federal appeals court to reconsider its decision overturning a $31.8 million marijuana verdict against Curaleaf subsidiaries, according to The Marijuana Herald.

The ruling being challenged had wiped out the jury award. NORML, the long-running marijuana reform organization, wants the court to revisit that outcome.

Specifics are scarce. The report we reviewed doesn't identify the circuit, the case caption, or the specific arguments in NORML's filing, and we've left those details out rather than guess. No ruling on the reconsideration request has been reported.

How a Reconsideration Request Works

Asking an appeals court to reconsider a ruling is a long shot by design, and the filing is usually aimed at a narrow set of errors.

Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a party can seek panel rehearing under Rule 40 or rehearing by the full court under Rule 35. Panels typically grant either request only when the court overlooked a point of law or fact, or when the question carries exceptional importance. Full-court review is rarer still.

That framing explains why a third party like NORML would step in. An outside group can't relitigate the facts. It can argue the legal question reaches well past one defendant.

Why Civil RICO Keeps Surfacing in Cannabis

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act has become the preferred weapon for plaintiffs who want to turn marijuana's federal illegality into a damages claim.

It's a familiar pattern. In Safe Streets Alliance v. Hickenlooper, the Tenth Circuit in 2017 let Colorado neighbors pursue RICO claims against a licensed operator. The Ninth Circuit later reached a different result in a case brought by a competitor.

Then came the Supreme Court. In Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, decided in 2025, the justices held that RICO's "business or property" injury requirement can be met by economic losses that flow from a personal injury. Plaintiffs' lawyers read that as a green light.

RICO also lets a prevailing plaintiff recover treble damages and attorney fees. That's the multiplier that makes these cases worth filing.

What It Means for Operators and Investors

The cleanest read on this fight is that a verdict in the tens of millions against an MSO is a balance-sheet event, not a nuisance.

Curaleaf is among the largest multistate operators in the country. A $31.8 million judgment, if it were reinstated, would sit as a contingent liability that investors and lenders have to price, and while its reversal removed that cloud, a successful reconsideration push would put it right back.

Not yet. Nothing has been reinstated, and nothing in the available reporting suggests the court has signaled interest in doing so.

For mid-sized operators, the lesson is practical. Litigation reserves, insurance coverage for RICO claims, and disclosure language all deserve a fresh look. Many carriers exclude federally illegal conduct from coverage, which leaves operators self-insuring the biggest risk. That math is hard to argue with.

What to Watch Next

The court's response to the reconsideration request is the only near-term signal that matters.

A denial, which is the base case for most rehearing requests, would leave the reversal standing and push any further challenge toward the Supreme Court. An order calling for a response from Curaleaf would be the first real sign that the panel is listening. For full background on the dispute, see the CannIntel topic hub on the Curaleaf RICO marijuana verdict appeal.

Marijuana's status under the Controlled Substances Act still frames every one of these claims. Courts keep sorting out how far RICO reaches into state-licensed businesses, and the broader legal backdrop remains unsettled.

Watch for whether the court orders a response from Curaleaf or simply denies the request. Either way, plaintiffs' lawyers across the industry will read the result as a guide to how durable a big RICO verdict is on appeal.