Advocates for increased social equity in the cannabis space are sounding the alarm about the implications of the 1st Circuit's ruling. Not all industry participants welcome the 1st Circuit's decision, and some are concerned about what the decision means for the state markets.

It should be noted that the cannabis industry is not a monolith. At the very least, the decision provides further support for the argument that legalization at the state level may not discriminate against out-of-state operators, even though cannabis remains illegal under federal law. Of course, finding a willing plaintiff could prove to be tricky since transportation of cannabis across state lines is one of the primary 'red lines' in the so-called Cole Memorandum, which outlined enforcement policies for federal prosecutors.

And, although the ruling does not immediately pave the way for interstate cannabis commerce, scholars like Robert Mikos (professor at Vanderbilt Law School and one of the leading experts on the intersection of federalism and cannabis), predict that such a challenge could be on the horizon. As such, the implications of this decision are significant, especially for multistate operators (or MSOs) who are now able to point to federal precedent to challenge residency-based regulations for both medical and adult-use cannabis licensing.

Clandestiny cannabis