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.

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.

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.