Court upholds Washington state residency requirement for cannabis industry

A U.S. choose has upheld Washington’s residency requirement for involvement within the state’s authorized hashish trade — a call at odds with a federal appeals courtroom ruling regarding an analogous requirement in Maine.

A person who co-owns a series of Washington hashish shops referred to as Zips, Scott Atkinson, needed to switch a part of his possession curiosity to a longtime pal who lives in Idaho, Todd Brinkmeyer. Atkinson has been handled for most cancers and stated he hoped Brinkmeyer would assist take over the enterprise ought to his well being deteriorate.

However Washington requires house owners and traders in regulated marijuana companies to have lived within the state for a minimum of six months, and Brinkmeyer stated he has no intention of transferring.

Brinkmeyer sued the Washington Liquor and Hashish Board in 2020, arguing that the residency requirement was unconstitutional as a result of it interferes with interstate commerce — which is the purview of Congress — and discriminates in opposition to him as an out-of-state resident.

U.S. District Decide Benjamin Settle in Tacoma disagreed in a ruling issued Monday. He discovered that the residency requirement could not intrude with interstate commerce as a result of there isn’t a authorized interstate commerce in marijuana — the drug stays unlawful underneath federal legislation.

“Though Washington’s ‘legalization’ of hashish definitely doesn’t align with Congress’s intent, the residency necessities do,” Settle wrote. “The residency necessities try to forestall any interstate commerce in hashish and to forestall hashish from Washington from transferring into states the place it stays unlawful, like Idaho.”

Additional, Settle dominated, Washington was not discriminating in opposition to Brinkmeyer as an out-of-state resident underneath the Structure’s “Privileges and Immunities Clause” as a result of “it has by no means been established that there’s any proper … to interact in unlawful commerce.”

Oregon doesn’t have a residency requirement for proudly owning a hashish enterprise.

The ruling was at odds with a call from a federal courtroom choose in Maine who struck down a residency requirement in that state’s medical marijuana program. The First U.S. Circuit Court docket of Appeals — to date the one federal appeals courtroom to think about the matter — upheld that ruling final summer time, saying that whether or not authorized or not, there may be interstate commerce in marijuana, and it is as much as Congress to manage it.

Dan Oates, an legal professional for Brinkmeyer, stated in an e mail Tuesday they have been evaluating whether or not to attraction Settle’s order.

“It’s unlucky, notably as a result of, because the courtroom acknowledged, the ruling stands in stark distinction to the vast majority of rulings by different federal courts on this identical subject,” Oates stated.

Washington and Colorado in 2012 turned the primary U.S. states to legalize the leisure use of hashish for adults. Washington restricted funding in and possession of its licensed hashish companies to throughout the state, largely in hopes of persuading the U.S. Justice Division to not problem its authorized marijuana legislation in courtroom.

Two Washington hashish trade teams — the Washington CannaBusiness Alliance and the Craft Hashish Coalition — urged the courtroom to strike down the residency requirement, saying it unfairly limits entry to funding.

“The livelihoods of hundreds of residents depend upon this trade,” the teams wrote. “These residents are adversely affected by the State’s exclusionary and protectionist insurance policies that limit their capability to lift capital and develop their companies.”