A hemp cultivator based in Cheshire has filed a federal lawsuit contending that Connecticut’s approach to awarding adult-use cannabis cultivation licenses is constitutionally flawed and discriminatory.
Background
Since launching his hemp farm in 2018, following federal legalization of non-intoxicating hemp, farmer Brant Smith has sought the opportunity to transition into adult-use cannabis cultivation. He has actively lobbied the legislature and advocated publicly for the state to revise its zoning regulations, which currently list cannabis cultivation among prohibited uses in his town.
Nature of the Lawsuit
Smith’s complaint, filed in federal court, names Governor Ned Lamont, Attorney General William Tong, and the Commissioner of the Department of Consumer Protection, Bryan Cafferelli, as defendants. It asserts that the state’s licensing scheme — particularly the preference given to “social equity” applicants and individuals from disadvantaged or disproportionately impacted areas (DIAs) — constitutes impermissible economic protectionism and violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The suit contends that by prioritizing in-state social-equity applicants and excluding out-of-state applicants, the state unlawfully restricts commerce and favors certain economic interests. The legal theory draws on a recent Second Circuit decision in which a similar licensing scheme in New York was deemed unconstitutional for favouring in-state applicants.
Key Issues Raised
- Smith argues that although he has an established hemp-farming operation and has complied with applicable rules, the licensing regime presently denies him equal opportunity. As his attorney states: “Everybody gets a chance or nobody gets a chance, whether it’s cantaloupes, cannabis or cabbage.”
- The lawsuit maintains that the state’s licensing law is unfairly skewed toward certain applicants based on geography and social equity status, rather than objective merit or business readiness.
- If successful, the action could force Connecticut to revisit and rewrite its statutes and regulations governing adult-use cannabis cultivation licensing. As the attorney representing Smith explains: “The court has before it the question of, is Connecticut’s law compliant?”
Implications
This case highlights a tension between the goals of social-equity programs in the cannabis sector and constitutional protections of interstate commerce. Connecticut’s effort to rectify past harms caused by cannabis prohibition — via preferential licensing for individuals from DIAs — now faces judicial scrutiny as to whether it can lawfully exclude other qualified participants.
Legislative and administrative actors may face pressure to ensure that future licensing regimes balance the policy objectives of equity and restorative justice with constitutional requirements of nondiscrimination and fair competition.
Conclusion
As the lawsuit proceeds, it may serve as a landmark for how states craft adult-use cannabis licensing frameworks, particularly where social-equity incentives are involved. The outcome in this case may influence whether jurisdictions may continue to prioritise applicants on the basis of geographic or social-impact metrics — or whether such preferences will be subject to heightened constitutional challenge.
Dabbin-Dad Newsroom
