Tracy Gallegos and Paul Josephson, Duane Morris partners and team leads of the Cannabis Industry Group, are once again recognized in Cannabis Law Report‘s list of Global Top Lawyers.
The list honors cannabis practitioners via the publication’s annual survey of clients and lawyers in the cannabis legal services sector as well as its personal editorial decisions based on its reporting of the industry for nearly 10 years.
The Duane Morris Cannabis Industry Group will present a webinar, Mainstreaming Cannabis: Legal Challenges and Considerations for Social Consumption Lounges, on Thursday, September 26, 2024, from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Eastern time.
Continue reading “Webinar: Legal Challenges and Considerations for Social Consumption Lounges”
By: Kathleen O’Malley and Danielle Dwyer
Recently, Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin announced a Finding of Probable Cause by the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR) against Prince Telecom LLC (Prince) for declining to hire a medical marijuana user as a cable installation technician. The DCR found the job applicant was subject to disability discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The basis for the DCR’s determination was Prince’s rescission of a job offer after the applicant, a medical marijuana user, tested positive for cannabis in connection with a pre-employment drug screen.
Prince, a company that constructs and maintains telecommunications and cable systems, offered a technician job to the applicant pending a drug test. The applicant informed the company that he had a medical marijuana prescription and used marijuana to treat a disability. When the applicant tested positive for cannabis, he provided his medical marijuana prescription card to the company, after which Prince rescinded the job offer. Prince maintained that it could not provide the applicant with any accommodation given the safety-sensitive nature of the job duties of the position (such as, driving company vehicles, operating machinery, working with electrical wires, climbing ladders and lifting 50 pounds or more). According the DCR, Prince assumed that hiring a medical marijuana user to perform such tasks would expose the company to “enormous” liability.
The DCR issued a Finding of Probable Cause because Prince did not ask the applicant for additional information about the nature of his disability; how often and what time of day the applicant used marijuana; and what effect, if any, his medical marijuana use might have on him during work hours. By failing to initiate discussions of that nature with the applicant, the DCR concluded that Prince did not meet its obligation to engage in the interactive process. Under the LAD, employers have an affirmative duty to consider reasonable accommodations for applicants and employees. Broadly speaking, this means an employer should have a dialogue with a disabled applicant or employee and should ask questions to determine whether the individual can perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation. Once the employer has sufficient information from the individual and/or the individual’s healthcare provider about the disability and any proposed accommodations, the employer can evaluate whether it is able to offer a reasonable accommodation without posing an undue burden on the company. Employers who fail to engage in this interactive process violate the LAD—which is exactly what the DCR has accused Prince of doing.
While the LAD protects individuals with disabilities, it is also worth noting that both medical and adult marijuana use are legal in New Jersey and the state has enacted protections for the use of marijuana. The Jake Honig Compassionate Use Medical Cannabis Act (CUMCA) prohibits an employer from taking an adverse employment action against an employee or applicant (e.g., terminating or refusing to hire) based on the fact that the employee is registered as a medical marijuana user. The Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA) protects adult use of marijuana and prohibits employers from taking adverse employment actions due solely to a positive drug test for cannabis. CREAMMA also has specific and stringent protocols with respect to drug testing in the workplace. Because CREAMMA went into law after Prince rescinded the applicant’s job offer, the DCR did not review Prince’s conduct to determine whether it violated that statute as well.
Notably, the DCR did not find that Prince had to accommodate the applicant’s use of marijuana in workplace or that it had an obligation to hire him. The agency found that Prince had an obligation to engage in the interactive process—to gather information sufficient to consider whether it could have reasonably accommodated the applicant’s disability. If Prince had learned the applicant used medical marijuana after work hours and would not be impaired or under the influence when reporting for duty, Prince may have been able to reasonably accommodate the applicant’s disability. The laws in New Jersey are clear that employers have a right to maintain a drug-free workplace and do not have to accommodate use of medical marijuana in the workplace or during work hours. Based on the DCR’s finding, Prince’s error was that it made too hasty a decision and did not gather any information from the applicant to determine whether it could have accommodated his disability.
Of note, a Finding of Probable Cause is not a final determination on the merits. It means the DCR determined that there is sufficient evidence to warrant further proceedings against Prince. The parties will now have the opportunity to resolve the case voluntarily through conciliation. If the parties cannot resolve the matter, the case will move to the Office of Administrative Law or the Superior Court for further adjudication.
In the absence of federal enforcement action, state legislatures have stepped into the breach, enacting laws regulating products containing intoxicating substances that are chemically synthesized versions of chemicals in hemp. Those substances are referred to here as hemp-synthesized intoxicants or HSIs. Challenges to state authority to regulate HSI are being filed. In a recent decision that may foreshadow what is to come, a federal court declined to enjoin Wyoming’s hemp law.
As we have previously reported, the passage of the Agriculture Improvement Act, commonly referred to as the 2018 Farm Bill, opened the floodgates to unregulated intoxicating hemp products across the country. Though the 2018 Farm Bill authorized the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate hemp-derived products intended for human consumption, the FDA has yet to promulgate rules for such products or HSIs. In the absence of federal regulations, states have begun to enact their own rules.
In Green Room LLC, et al. v. State of Wyoming, et al., a group of HSI wholesalers, retailers, and manufacturers filed a federal suit challenging amendments to Wyoming’s hemp laws and requesting a preliminary injunction. In pertinent part, the amendments expanded the definition of THC to include any psychoactive structural, optical, or geometric isomers of THC, encompassing both CBD and the popular Delta-8 THC. Because cannabis remains illegal in Wyoming, the amendments effectively prohibited the possession, sale, transport, and production of intoxicating substances synthesized from hemp. The plaintiffs argued, in part, that the amendments were unconstitutional because they were preempted by the 2018 Farm Bill, which they claim legalized all hemp substances, including intoxicating substances synthesized from hemp, for intrastate and interstate purposes.
On July 19, 2024, the federal court denied plaintiffs’ request to enjoin enforcement of the new law, finding that they do not have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
Specifically, the court found that the 2018 Farm Bill does not prevent states from regulating HSIs. The court found the 2018 Farm Bill did not confer any right on plaintiffs to manufacture or sell intoxicating products resulting from hemp, but merely redefined the term hemp. Most important, it held the 2018 Farm Bill contains an express “no preemption” clause permitting states to regulate hemp more stringently than federal law. The no preemption clause expressly permits a state to enact laws regulating intoxicating substances synthesized from hemp in a manner “more stringent” than the 2018 Farm Bill. The court further concluded that Wyoming’s amendments do not violate the dormant commerce clause, do not amount to a regulatory taking, and are not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.
Green Room is not the first challenge to state restrictions on HSIs. In Bio Gen LLC et al. v. Sanders et al., the State of Arkansas appealed a trial court decision enjoining Arkansas regulations that restrict the manufacture and distribution of products that contain synthetic cannabinoids that could be intoxicating, such as Delta-8 THC. In Northern Virginia Hemp and Agriculture LLC, et al. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., the plaintiffs, an HSI product manufacturer/distributor and consumer, appealed a trial court decision that denied their motion to enjoin the State of Virginia from enforcing Virginia regulations that restrict the manufacture and distribution of products that contain synthetic cannabinoids that could be intoxicating, such as Delta-8 THC.
Those pending appeals present the possibility of a federal circuit split on the question whether the 2018 Farm Bill legalized intoxicating substances that could be derived from hemp. On behalf of the American Trade Association for Cannabis & Hemp, Duane Morris filed an amicus brief in each case that asserts that the 2018 Farm Bill did not legalize hemp-synthesized intoxicants, and it reserved for states the right to regulate such substances in the interest of public safety.
As more states roll out new restrictions on intoxicating hemp products and operators, we expect to see more challenges. Though not a final ruling on the merits of the suit, the court’s decision suggests these plaintiffs and others challenging state intoxicating hemp laws have an uphill battle ahead.
The passage of the 2018 Farm Bill has led to the proliferation of unregulated hemp-synthesized intoxicants (“HSIs”) flooding the market nationwide. Gas stations, convenience stores, and other retailers are widely selling these unregulated and untaxed products.
The boom in HSIs, particularly Delta-8 THC, is a direct result of an entirely unregulated market with virtually no federal oversight aside from occasional FDA warning letters when products resemble candy and snacks favored by children. Most recently, one troubling report suggests testing labs are finding that the processes for converting CBD extracted from legal hemp into intoxicating Delta-8 and Delta-9 products create a soup of mysterious compounds whose effects and dangers are presently unknown.
In response, many state legislatures are considering bills to ban or regulate intoxicating hemp products.
Senate Bill 3235 was introduced in May 2024 with the intent to grant the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission (“CRC”) broad authority to regulate the production and sale of intoxicating hemp products in New Jersey, to limit sales of intoxicating hemp products to licensed cannabis retailers and sales of intoxicating hemp beverages to certain liquor licensees approved by the CRC, and to allow municipalities to impose the same 2% tax on retail sales they apply to regulated cannabis. On June 28, 2024, the New Jersey Legislature quickly approved it and a crush of other legislation on the eve of the state’s budget deadline.
In the original draft of the bill, intoxicating hemp product meant any product “cultivated, derived, or manufactured from hemp . . . that is sold in this State that has a concentration of total THC greater than .5 milligrams per serving or 2.5 milligrams per package.” This broad definition encompassed all intoxicating hemp products sold in New Jersey, regardless of the state of origin,
But after being passed out of committee and ready for a full Senate vote, the bill was sent back to committee and amended to limit its reach to only intoxicating hemp products “cultivated, derived, or manufactured in this State[.]” By limiting the bill’s reach to only the small universe of hemp products cultivated, derived, or manufactured in New Jersey, intoxicating hemp products originating or imported from other states will remain on the market and not subject to the bill’s restrictions or any current or future regulation.
This language was likely added to address interstate commerce concerns. But the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit states from regulating out of state companies that sell hemp products into their state; it only prohibits discriminatory treatment of out of state operators compared to in state businesses. As long as they are subject to the same rules, the state may regulate the sale and taxation of out of state products like any other industry.
The IHP bill is currently on Governor Murphy’s desk awaiting action: sign, veto or conditionally veto. If he takes no action by mid-August, it becomes law.
Industry, social equity and union advocates alike are urging a conditional veto sending S3235 back to the Legislature to restore the bill’s reach to include all intoxicating hemp products sold in the state. Others object to liquor licensees jumping to the front of the line and being allowed to sell intoxicating hemp beverages just as social equity cannabis retailers are finally opening their doors after years of effort and expense. Unions organizing the cannabis industry that have fought hard to create good jobs in a viable industry likewise seem irked by this end run around union mandates that is likely to cost members their jobs.
The last minute amendment appears to undermine the express purpose of the bill. If enacted in current form, it will likely result in New Jersey companies exclusively purchasing and selling intoxicating hemp products produced out of state to avoid the time and expense of licensure, CRC approval, and taxation.
A well-intentioned law quickly passed to address a growing problem, the cannabis and hemp industries anxiously await Governor Murphy’s action.
Tracy Gallegos, partner and team lead of the Duane Morris Cannabis Industry Group, is quoted in American Banker about CTrust’s recently launched Cannabis Trust Score and its impact on the industry. […]
“Until there’s a rescheduling, obtaining traditional banking loans is going to be a significant hardship for plant touching operators,” said Gallegos, referring to cannabis’ classification as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, which exposes banks to potential money laundering investigations, which prevents most banks from lending to cannabis businesses. […]
“Having a company like CTrust provide a credit score is an indicator of credit worthiness, but it won’t do anything to solve any of the issues that the banks are facing in terms of the banks being penalized for engaging in business with what the federal laws still consider an illegal activity.”
Duane Morris was nationally recognized by Chambers & Partners USA 2024 for Cannabis, and partners Tracy Gallegos, Seth Goldberg, Paul Josephson and Michael Schwamm were individually honored.
“Duane Morris helps clients across all sectors of the multi-faceted legal cannabis industry. The group has extensive experience with the wide array of issues attendant to legal cannabis business activities, including licensing for cultivation, processing and dispensing; litigation; banking and finance; raising and deploying capital; protecting intellectual property; real estate development and leasing; public company representation and SEC filings; land use and zoning; healthcare and research; taxation; and cross-border transactions.”
The Legal 500 2024 has also placed the Cannabis Industry Group in Tier 1 nationally, with clients noting that “Duane Morris’ cannabis practice is simply the best in the country. They have the most thorough knowledge of our ever-changing industry and its regulatory landscape.”
“What makes Duane Morris unique among peer firms is the entrepreneurial spirit of the cannabis practice, backed up by extensive institutional knowledge and experience of business. They created laws, regulations and precedents that govern and protect the cannabis industry today and advised businesses how to operate within them.”
Clients also acknowledged “the passion and commitment of Duane Morris’ lawyers to serve businesses and entrepreneurs.” The Legal 500 named partners Seth Goldberg and Michael Schwamm “Leading Lawyers” in the Cannabis Industry – as well as recognizing Tracy Gallegos, Paul Josephson and Justin Santarosa for their work.
“The firm has acted as a pathfinder through a constellation of state laws and regulation – many of which the firm’s cannabis practice has helped shape.”
By Paul Josephson and James Hearon
State cannabis advertising bans are getting their day in court, albeit before the federal Fifth Circuit, a court that has been increasingly hostile to regulation.
In February 2022, Mississippi enacted the Medical Cannabis Act, legalizing medical marijuana within the state. The Act granted the Mississippi Department of Health (“MDOH”) authority to establish and promulgate rules and regulations governing the advertising of medical cannabis.
The Act made clear that any proposed rules or regulations could not prohibit a cannabis operation from engaging in certain types of marketing and advertising, including displaying appropriate signage on the licensed premises, listing in business directories and other publications, or displaying logos or other branding materials. In promulgating its proposed regulations, MDOH prohibited licensees from advertising or marketing in any form of media (i.e., broadcast, electronic, print, etc.)
In November 2023, Tru Source Medical Cannabis, LLC challenged MDOH’s advertising restriction as a violation of the First Amendment. In January 2024, the Northern District of Mississippi federal court upheld the advertising ban and dismissed the lawsuit, entitled Cocroft, et al. v. Graham, et al., in its entirety. The district court relied extensively on the Montana Supreme Court’s analysis in Montana Cannabis Industry Association v. State of Montana, 368 P.3d 1131 (Mont. 2016), rejecting a similar challenge to cannabis ad regulations. The district court agreed that “an activity that is not permitted by federal law—even if permitted by state law—is not a ‘lawful activity’” and, thus, does not qualify for commercial speech protection. Tru Source appealed this ruling to the Fifth Circuit.
We are closely watching the Fifth Circuit’s decision to see whether antipathy for cannabis or regulatory overreach will prevail. The circuit, which embraces Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, has been making headlines lately for rulings hemming in the authority of federal agencies. In recent cases, the Fifth Circuit rejected FDA rules permitting use of the abortion-inducing drug mifepristone (just overturned by the Supreme Court late last week), tossed out the SEC’s system for adjudicating enforcement cases, and declared the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding mechanism unconstitutional (also reversed by the Supreme Court). The Fifth Circuit has been in the legal spotlight, and its rulings have been keeping the Supreme Court busy.
The Fifth Circuit’s decision is also likely to implicate a much broader and unsettled legal question; that is, whether constitutional protections apply to state-legal, but federally prohibited, conduct. In 2022 and 2023, we saw a number of constitutional challenges to residency requirements in state cannabis regulations alleging that such requirements discriminate against out-of-state operators and violate the Dormant Commerce Clause.
Several courts, including the First Circuit and the Eastern District of Michigan, have held that discriminatory residency requirements likely violate the Dormant Commerce Clause. Other federal courts, such as the Western District of Washington and the District of Maryland, have found that, because cannabis is federally illegal, the Dormant Commerce Clause likely does not apply—the same rationale relied on by the district court in Cocroft.
The Fifth Circuit’s recent history as a venue where regulators have fared poorly suggests Mississippi’s outright ban on commercial speech by state-legal businesses will get a hard look. Briefing will be complete shortly, and we would expect oral argument and a decision before year end.
There are countless strains of the plant Cannabis sativa L. Depending on the strain, the plant will contain a range of different chemicals called cannabinoids. New cannabinoids are still being discovered. Some of those, such as delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (D-9 THC), can cause psychoactive effects, while others such as cannabidiol (CBD) do not cause psychoactive effects. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids like CBD can be chemically altered to become substances, such as delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (D-8 THC), that cause psychoactive effects.
In 2018, Congress passed a Farm Bill that defined “hemp” as:
[T]he plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.
Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.
A webinar replay of Mainstreaming Cannabis: Branding and Advertising is available for viewing.
