On November 8, 2023, the Florida Supreme Court held oral arguments on the validity of a constitutional amendment initiative to legalize adult-use cannabis (case number SC2023-0682). The Florida Constitution requires the state’s attorney general to request an advisory opinion from the Court on the validity of any ballot initiatives. The Attorney General has taken the position that the proposed amendment does not meet statutory requirements.
Oral arguments largely centered on two issues, the first being whether the ballot summary is misleading for stating that it would “allow[] [existing] Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers [MMTCs], and other state licensed entities” to engage in the sale of and other activities involving adult-use cannabis. In the Attorney General’s view, as expressed during oral arguments by Florida’s Chief Deputy Solicitor General, this constitutes a “promise” that the amendment by itself cannot deliver, since additional legislative action would be required for “other state licensed entities” to exist. Stated differently, if adopted, the amendment would give rise to a new legal situation under which MMTCs could immediately sell adult-use cannabis, but any non-MMTC entity would still need to undergo a licensure process. As the passage of the amendment by itself would not bring about “other state licensed entities”, the Attorney General’s reasoning goes, the ballot summary is misleading.
The justices that intervened did not appear receptive to the Attorney General’s stance. Chief Justice Muñiz stressed that Florida law requires that the ballot summary be “an explanatory statement … of the chief purpose of the measure.” He was skeptical as to whether any voters that otherwise support adult-use cannabis legalization might vote against the measure just because the Legislature might not eventually make provisions for licensure of non-MMTC entities. In response, the Attorney General suggested that voters who “oppose monopolies” might take a principled stand against an MMTC-only regime, even if they otherwise support legalization. Whether this is a credible proposition or not, it certainly is a rich one, considering the high barriers to entry Florida has established for the medical cannabis industry.
Discussion then turned to whether the summary was misleading because it states that it would “allow[] adults … to possess, purchase, or use marijuana … for non-medical personal consumption,” even though, as the Attorney General’s August 2 brief argues, given continuing federal prohibition, “not a single instance of recreational marijuana use will be lawful.” Although the summary also clarifies that the amendment “applies to Florida law; does not change, or immunize violations, of federal law,” the state considers this language is insufficient to eliminate “the confusion caused by [the term] “allow[].”
Reactions by the justices to this argument were mixed. Justice Canady said he was “baffled” by the suggestion that a voter could somehow conclude that the relevant conduct that would be legal under federal law. On the other hand, Justice Sasso took issue with the assertion by the initiative sponsor’s (Smart & Safe Florida) counsel that the summary “explicitly” limited the amendment’s impact to Florida law. In one of the proceedings’ highlight reel moments, Smart & Safe Florida’s counsel replied that “we expect voters to be able to read things in context.”
There was also some discussion about whether the initiative might violate Florida’s single-subject requirement for constitutional amendment initiatives. Lining up with the state against the placement of the initiative on the ballot, counsel for the Florida Chamber of Commerce (“Chamber”) argued that, if approved, the initiative would bring about the “hidden result” of creating an “immediate oligopoly” for MMTCs, with no timeline in place for licensure of non-MMTC entities. Justice Canady seemed particularly unreceptive to this argument, stating that the Chamber’s “fundamental position here is that this is just not a proper subject for the … initiative process, it is a policy matter [and that] there is really no way that the citizens could act in this arena via the initiative process effectively.” He added that the single-subject requirement is “turning into … a straitjacket on the people.”
After hearing today’s arguments and more generally tracking the development of this case, it is hard not to conclude that the Attorney General just wants to keep adult-use cannabis illegal in Florida, throwing anything at the wall to see what sticks. In this sense, it was encouraging to see at least some justices pushing back on some of the more tortuous arguments being made by the Attorney General and its allies. There seemed to be a sense that, at least for some justices, the endless hairsplitting over cannabis initiatives has gone too far. And indeed it has: It is time the people of Florida had a voice when it comes to adult-use legalization.
