Four New Yorkers who served in the U.S. Armed Forces have sued, inter alia, Gov. Kathy Hochul’s administration, accusing state officials of favoring convicted drug felons over disabled vets in the awarding of licenses to sell legal marijuana. The plaintiffs are having some early success.
On August 7, 2023, Judge Kevin Bryant in New York Supreme Court, County of Albany, ordered that the New York Cannabis Control Board (“CCB”) and Office of Cannabis Management (“OCM”) are restrained from awarding or further processing any more Conditional Adult-Use Retail Dispensary (“CAURD”) licenses. OCM is also restrained from conferring operational approval upon any more provisional or existing CAURD licenses pending further order of the Court. The parties are due back in Court today, August 9th, to argue the merits of the motion upon which the temporary restraining order was issued.
The CAURD lawsuit
The lawsuit alleges that the CCB and OCM failed to set up a legal cannabis market envisioned by New York’s Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (“MRTA”) approved in 2021, which specifically lists disabled vets as one of five priority “social and economic equity” groups to get at least 50% of employment opportunities in the budding pot industry.
The five groups delineated in the MRTA are (1) convicted felons of marijuana-related crimes, (2) service-disabled veterans, (3) women owned business, (4) minority owned businesses and (5) distressed farmers.
The CAURD program specifically excluded disabled vets from the award of CAURD licenses. To date, all the CAURD licenses went to “justice involved” individuals or partners of drug felons as well as applicants from other categories.
The lawsuit calls for a temporary restraining order to stop the awarding of licenses that excludes vets. It claims state regulators have violated the separation of powers doctrine, substituting its judgement for the law approved by the legislature.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Defendants created a new “social equity” policy that is inconsistent with the priorities of the Legislature— namely, the CAURD program as none of the MRTA’s provisions limits “social equity” to “justice involved individuals” with “qualifying businesses.”
In other words, the lawsuit alleges that Defendants invented a new licensing category out of whole cloth that is at odds with the statutory requirements. Thus, no social equity applicants (such as disabled veterans) or other applicants have been permitted to apply for (much less open) an adult-use retail dispensary.
The lawsuit continues to allege that Defendants’ conduct directly contravenes the Legislature’s express mandate in the MRTA to which required the CCB and/or OCM to open the initial adult-use cannabis retail dispensary license application period for all applicants at the same time.
It is alleged that Defendants’ promulgation of the CAURD program—and their decision to open the application window for only CAURD applicants—reflects Defendants’ own ideas of social and economic equity and constitutes impermissible legislating by an administrative agency. Rather, it is a version of social equity that has been conjured up by non-elected officials who are, as administrators, not authorized to make such social and economic policy decisions.
Notably, in opposing the temporary relief requested by the Plaintiffs, Defendants’ counsel claimed that they do not anticipate approving any new provisional CAURD licenses. Counsel explained that such approval would require a meeting of the Cannabis Control Board, and such meeting is not occurring again until September. Defendants do anticipate, however, continuing to review application materials and undertaking other activity consistent with “processing” CAURD applications– for example, reviewing responses from applicants to the Defendants’ requests for additional information from certain applicants, or reviewing results from various background checks.
This is a very important lawsuit to watch, particularly for the hundreds of CAURD applicants who are midstream on critical business planning decisions, such as leasing real estate and taking on investment. Stay tuned to the Canna Law Blog for updates.
