Medical marijuana facility homeowners argued to the Maine Supreme Judicial Courtroom on Thursday that they need residency necessities in place to discourage out-of-state rivals.
The authorized battle over residency necessities for the sale of adult-use marijuana has been drawn out over the previous yr, with medical marijuana sellers advocating for restrictions on out-of-state suppliers to prevent smaller businesses being driven out of the market.
The residency requirement has not been enforced since last May, when Wellness Connection — a series of Maine-based medical marijuana dispensaries that’s 49 p.c owned by a Delaware investor — challenged that it was unconstitutional underneath the 14th Modification, which bars overly restrictive industrial laws between states.
Earlier iterations of residency necessities acknowledged that any marijuana enterprise proprietor or operator must reside in Maine and will report that they filed a minimum of 4 years of taxes throughout the state.
Maine Lawyer Basic Aaron Frey acknowledged that his opinion was that the requirement would face significant constitutional challenges, and was not prone to maintain up in courtroom.
In August of final yr, a lawsuit filed by United Hashish Sufferers and Caregivers of Maine in favor of residency necessities was dismissed by the Maine Superior Courtroom.
In response to the lawsuit, Superior Courtroom Justice William Stokes stated that generalized curiosity in a difficulty shouldn’t be sufficient to assist a ruling, and that generalized hurt claims are “speculative at finest”, the Press Herald reported.
United Hashish appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Courtroom to assessment the lawsuit, and argued on Thursday that the shortage of enforcement of residency necessities would current unfair competitors for native small-business homeowners. Citing previous arguments, United Hashish stated that residency necessities have been designed to guard native enterprise homeowners, and that the “opinion of the legal professional normal is simply that — an opinion”.
A response to Thursday’s arguments is anticipated later this spring.