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 (CBA) (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
SENTENCING COURT MUST MAKE A THRESHOLD DETERMINATION WHETHER DEFENDANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS IN THIS FIRST DEGREE RAPE CASE, SENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
Summary Judgment Properly Awarded in Derivative Child-Neglect Proceeding
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RAYMOND F AND THE CHILD; THEREFORE RAYMOND F’S REQUEST FOR A GENETIC MARKER TEST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT’S UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS PROPERLY REDUCED TO ZERO BECAUSE CLAIMANT’S PENSION EXCEEDED THE AMOUNT OF THE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY BEGINS TO RUN WHEN THERE HAS BEEN AN OPEN REPUDIATION OF FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS; HERE THERE HAS NOT BEEN SUCH AN OPEN REPUDIATION; THE STATUTE NEVER BEGAN TO RUN AND THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION AS UNTIMELY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
Criteria for Unconstitutional Impairment of Contract Rights Explained in Context of Requirement that Health Insurers Reimburse Customers Pursuant to Public Health Law Section 4308
WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE CONSIDERATION OF AN ISSUE WHICH AROSE AFTER THE WAIVER, AT SENTENCING ALL WERE UNDER THE MISCONCEPTION DEFENDANT WAS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, SENTENCING JUDGE HAD SINCE BECOME THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, THE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE COULD NOT, THEREFORE, REPRESENT DEFENDANT (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).
0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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...