Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

cheeseburgercats t1_iwzdtsw wrote

Reply to comment by intotheunknownn in Why is a Michigan resident blocking 63 New York dispensary licenses? by Character_Mall_1966

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