You are here: / / NEW YORK’S MARIHUANA REGULATION AND TAXATION ACT (MRTA) IS NOT PREEMPTED...

NEW YORK’S MARIHUANA REGULATION AND TAXATION ACT (MRTA) IS NOT PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT (CSA) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined New York’s Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA) which allows the sale and use of marihuana, is not preempted by the federal Controlled Substance Act, which does not allow the sale and use of marihuana:

… [W]e turn to petitioners’ contention that the challenged regulations promulgated under MRTA — which authorizes the sale, use and distribution of marihuana — create a positive conflict with the CSA prohibiting these exact actions. We find that no such conflict exists. Consistent with the main objectives of the CSA, the legislative intent behind MRTA was to, among other things, “regulate, control, . . . reduce the illegal drug market and reduce violent crime, reduce participation of otherwise law-abiding citizens in the illicit market . . . [and] protect the public health, safety and welfare of the people of the state” … . In doing so, the Legislature specifically provided that nothing in MRTA was “to require any individual to engage in any conduct that violates federal law or to exempt anyone from any requirement of federal law or pose any obstacle to the federal enforcement of federal law” … . Each of the challenged parts 113, 128 and 129 within title 9 of the NYCRR further these principles by regulating the legitimate and illegitimate handling of marihuana by setting specific restrictions on prescribers, manufacturers and retailers — including, as specifically challenged by petitioners, how medical and adult-use marihuana could be labeled, advertised and marketed … . When considered through the lens of a conflict preemption analysis, although petitioners present several instances where they claim there is an impossibility between federal and state law, these are merely hypothetical or potential conflicts, as neither MRTA nor the challenged regulations pose any requirements on an individual or entity to manufacture, distribute or possess marihuana … . Matter of Cannabis Impact Prevention Coalition, LLC v Hochul, 2026 NY Slip Op 01573, Third Dept 3-19-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a cogent summary of the criteria for federal preemption of a state law.​

 

You might also like
THE CONCEPTS OF ‘OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE’ AND ‘HARMLESS ERROR’ DISCUSSED IN DEPTH; THE MAJORITY FOUND THE EVIDENCE OVERWHELMING AND THE ERROR HARMLESS; THE CONCURRENCE FOUND THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT OVERWHELMING BUT FOUND THE ERROR HARMLESS UNDER A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS; THE DISSENT FOUND THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT OVERWHELMING AND THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS (THIRD DEPT).
FAMILY COURT’S CONCLUSIONS IN THIS CUSTODY MATTER WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, MATTER REMITTED FOR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER-MOTHER’S APPLICATION TO HAVE THE MALTREATMENT FINDING DEEMED UNFOUNDED AND EXPUNGED PROPERLY DENIED; MOTHER WOULD NOT ALLOW HER 16-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER INTO THE HOME; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
VERDICT FINDING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NEGLIGENT BUT FURTHER FINDING THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE STUDENT’S SUICIDE WAS NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE; PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED BULLYING AT SCHOOL CAUSED THEIR SON’S SUICIDE (THIRD DEPT).
ANNOUNCING A NEW RULE GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PROSPECTIVE EXPERT WITNESS’S QUALIFICATIONS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS, THE THIRD DEPT REQUIRES COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, EVEN IF SUCH DISCLOSURE FACILITATES THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WITNESS (THIRD DEPT).
PAROLE PROPERLY RESCINDED BASED UPON PETITIONER’S BEHAVIOR AT THE RESCISSION HEARING AND VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS PROVIDED AFTER PETITIONER HAD BEEN RELEASED (THIRD DEPT).
Family Court Cannot Review Support Magistrate’s Order in Absence of Specific Objection
DESPITE HAVING MADE A PRIOR MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON THE INSTANT MOTION WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT BY HIS ATTORNEY WHO ACKNOWLEDGED HE TOLD DEFENDANT A GUILTY PLEA WOULD NOT RESULT IN DEPORTATION (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH THE COURT FOUND THAT THE DEPUTY DID NOT SOUND HER AIR HORN BEFORE THE... THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR POSSESSION OF DRUGS TO...