Maryland Appellate Court: Cannabis Reform Act

OG Article By Daily Record Staff

September 18 2025

Bottom Line

The circuit court erred in ruling that the Cannabis Reform Act creates an unconstitutional monopoly under Article 41 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

Case

Moore v Maryland Hemp Coalition, No. 1590, Sept. Term 2023 (filed Sept. 9, 2025).Judges: Nazarian, Friedman (Zic joins in judgment only).

Facts

The Hemp Coalition challenged the Cannabis Reform Act’s licensing requirement. It bars businesses from selling certain cannabis products, including hemp-derived psychoactive products, without a cannabis license. The circuit court blocked enforcement of this requirement for hemp-derived products but allowed the state to issue licenses. Both sides appealed.

Law

Federal Preemption

The circuit court wrongly claimed the 2018 federal farm bill preempted the Cannabis Reform Act’s licensing scheme, citing Maryland’s failure to submit a regulatory plan to the USDA. Maryland submitted a hemp plan in 2020. The Hemp Coalition’s preemption argument is unlikely to succeed.

Unconstitutional Monopoly

The circuit court erred in finding the Cannabis Reform Act creates an unconstitutional monopoly under Article 41. The law meets common right and public interest exceptions. The Hemp Coalition’s claims fail for both the broader cannabis market and hemp-derived psychoactive products.

Application Fee and Lottery

The Hemp Coalition argued the Act’s application fee and lottery system violate Article 41 by limiting applicants and being unfair. The court disagrees. Both are applied uniformly to all applicants, so they do not violate Article 41.

Equal Protection

The circuit court wrongly found the Act’s social equity program violates Article 24’s equal protection clause. The program, including its use of zip codes, is not arbitrary under deferential review. It is permissible even if overinclusive or underinclusive.

Preliminary Injunction

The circuit court abused its discretion in granting the injunction. It recognized the Hemp Coalition’s business interests but misjudged the state’s public health interests. The public interest does not favor the Hemp Coalition. The injunction is reversed.

Cross-Appeal

The Hemp Coalition argued the circuit court should have stopped future license issuance due to alleged constitutional violations in the social equity program. This challenge fails. The first round of licenses is moot, and challenges to future rounds are not ripe.

Judgment

Circuit Court for Washington County reversed in part, affirmed in part.