Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment

Definition: The Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment is a provision in the federal budget that bars the US Department of Justice from spending money to interfere with states that have legalized medical cannabis. It first became law in December 2014. Because it’s a spending rule, not a permanent law, Congress has to renew it in each year’s appropriations to keep it in effect.

What Does the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment Do?

It prevents the Justice Department, including the DEA and federal prosecutors, from using federal funds to stop states from implementing their medical cannabis laws. In practice, that means federal authorities can’t spend money prosecuting patients, caregivers, or businesses that are fully complying with their state’s medical cannabis rules. It doesn’t protect adult-use (recreational) cannabis, and it doesn’t change cannabis’s status under the Controlled Substances Act.

What Is the History of the Amendment?

• 2001: First introduced by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, then repeatedly offered as the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment and voted down.
• May 30, 2014: Passed the House 219 to 189, now led by Reps. Dana Rohrabacher and Sam Farr.
• December 16, 2014: Signed into law as part of a federal spending package.
• 2017 onward: Also known as the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer amendment after Rep. Earl Blumenauer took over as co-sponsor.

How Have Courts Interpreted It?

In United States v. McIntosh (2016), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the amendment bars federal prosecution of people whose conduct fully complies with state medical cannabis law. Defendants who stray outside state rules don’t get that protection.

Why Does It Still Matter?

The amendment has been a key backstop for state medical programs, especially after the Cole Memo was rescinded in 2018. It remains relevant even after the DEA moved state-licensed medical marijuana to Schedule III in April 2026, because it directly limits federal enforcement spending.

Related terms: Cole Memo, Controlled Substances Act, MMJ, Prop 215

Sources: DEA: Marijuana Rescheduling Regulatory Actions; United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2016).

Last reviewed October 2026. This entry is for general education and isn’t legal advice.