Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

intotheunknownn t1_iwwsg7m wrote

It pretty clearly says it in the article. They are claiming the way the license statute is written is discriminatory against out-of-staters and effects interstate commerce which is a violation of the dormant commerce clause under the constitution.

Why is the particular Michigan resident making the claim? Well probably because they wanted to get a license and open a dispensary, didn’t get it, and now are trying to fight back in court to try again.

100

Character_Mall_1966 OP t1_iwwvoor wrote

That would make sense if they truly tried to get a NY license.

They created the business a week after the application window opened. They don’t run a cannabis business in any of the states in question. Their lawyer is a lawsuit troll who also sued CA over COVID tracing laws.

Use the context clues.

68

JaredSeth t1_iwwuh5i wrote

Peculiar that they don't seem to operate in Michigan or California under either of the names they filed suit with in New York and Sacramento. How the hell couldn't they get approved to run a dispensary in Michigan? I thought they gave those licenses away to anybody.

40

cogginsmatt t1_iwxb9jx wrote

Yeah I’m a Michigan transplant and can confirm there is quite literally a dispensary on every block in most Michigan municipalities

28

nysrpatakemyenergy2 t1_ix04566 wrote

So a Michigan businessperson looking to open up a dispo might not chose Michigan, but rather some other place with low market saturation?

1

cheeseburgercats t1_iwzdtsw wrote

The dormant commerce clause is federal though like “interstate” cannabis trade is federally illegal so at the very least not protected by this clause

8

intotheunknownn t1_iwzj7au wrote

That’s definitely an argument to be made and the one I would make. But the commerce clause has been historically used in a very broad manner. Courts have basically said that any effect on persons, instrumentality, or products all fall under the clause. So basically if you get fertilizer from Michigan to plant in then you are now technically participating in interstate commerce even if the final product will stay local. While more modern courts have started to narrow this application, the history gives way to broad enactment by congress.

I’m also no expert, but I am a second year law student who interns at a licensing firm in the city so I have a little exposure here.

5

___BobaFett___ t1_iwzjk0k wrote

I wouldn’t be too sure about the finality of that statement, I’m not too sure this is settled law. See a recent case out of the 1st Circuit, Northeast Patients Group v. United Cannabis Patients and Caregivers of Maine. Given the timing, this was probably the catalyst for the NY case.

3

sirzoop t1_iwxkjsq wrote

So? Let them open the stores and have his lawsuit proceed and if he wins give the man a license and allow out of staters to open in the future

3

intotheunknownn t1_iwy39v8 wrote

It’s stopped until the court makes a ruling because if it’s found unconstitutional then NY will have to rewrite how the licensing is distributed so that it isn’t “unfair” to out-of-staters. If they proceed with the way it is before the court ruling then they would have to take them away if the court rules it’s unconstitutional later, which would create a lot of other problems.

8