
The Constitutionality of the State Residency Requirements
More frequently over recent years, federal courts have wrestled with the constitutionality of a state’s requirement under its cannabis regulations that ownership of a cannabis company be majority owned (or some other prescribed percentage ownership) by a resident of such state, better known as a state’s “residency requirement.” The obvious repercussion of this regulatory requirement is the investor pool that cannabis companies can draw from is limited, especially as compared to cannabis businesses operating in states without a residency requirement. Not to mention the disappointment of entrepreneurs who want to invest in a new cannabis market, but don’t want to establish residency there.
Residency requirements have been challenged in federal district courts on the grounds that the regulation violates the Dormant Commerce Clause, a rather opaque bit of constitutional jurisprudence. The federal courts of Maine and Missouri have struck down residency requirements in those states, while just last week, a federal court in Washington upheld the residency requirement as constitutional and valid. Below is a summary of each court’s reasoning behind the decisions. No doubt, as new markets open up and states that have legalized adult use in November 2022 roll out their regulations, there will be additional states … Keep reading