Sign up for our daily Newsletter and stay up to date with all the latest news!

Subscribe I am already a subscriber

You are using software which is blocking our advertisements (adblocker).

As we provide the news for free, we are relying on revenues from our banners. So please disable your adblocker and reload the page to continue using this site.
Thanks!

Click here for a guide on disabling your adblocker.

Sign up for our daily Newsletter and stay up to date with all the latest news!

Subscribe I am already a subscriber

US (RI): Court revives case challenging state Cannabis Act

In a significant development for the Rhode Island cannabis market, on November 25, 2025, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Jensen v. Rhode Island Cannabis Control Commission, which revived a constitutional challenge to Rhode Island's cannabis retail licensing requirements. This opinion opens the door to further proceedings which could result in drastic changes to the Rhode Island retail cannabis application process and a possible delay in that process.

Enacted on May 25, 2022, the Rhode Island Cannabis Act legalized adult-use marijuana, created the Rhode Island Cannabis Control Commission, and authorized 24 retail licenses distributed across six geographic zones, with one "social equity" license per zone (six total). In pertinent part, the Act: imposes a residency requirement for all applicants (individuals must be Rhode Island residents; entities must have a principal place of business in Rhode Island with at least 51% equity owned by Rhode Island residents), and defines "social equity applicant" to include, among other criteria, majority ownership and control by individuals with an expungable cannabis offense or membership in an "impacted family," and majority ownership and control by individuals who have resided for five of the prior ten years in a "disproportionately impacted area."

The Plaintiff in Jensen challenges the residency requirement and two social equity qualifiers as discriminating against out of state applicants in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause, and further challenges the "disproportionately impacted area" qualifier under the Equal Protection Clause. The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island had dismissed the Plaintiff's claims based on ripeness.

Read more at JD Supra

Related Articles → See More