Higher Law: California's Supreme Court Considers a Preemption Debate Over Cannabis Enforcement
"If, as petitioner contends, cities and counties cannot enforce their cannabis regulations in criminal court proceedings, then the ability of amici's members to protect public health and safety is significantly impaired," lawyers for California cities and counties told the state Supreme Court.
January 19, 2023 at 04:00 PM
7 minute read
Higher Law
Welcome back to Higher Law, our weekly briefing on all things cannabis. I'm Cheryl Miller, reporting for Law.com from Sacramento.
This week we're looking at:
- A local-state preemption debate over cannabis enforcement.
- The 9th Circuit's rejection of a cannabis business's RICO claims.
- Two new cannabis regulators.
- A stinky pot dispute and new state-level cannabis efforts.
Thanks as always for reading. Got a story idea or feedback? You can send it all to me at [email protected]. You can also call me at 916.448.2935. Follow me on Twitter: @capitalaccounts.
Drone view of downtown Los Angeles,CA. Credit: Newport Coast Media/Adobe Stock Suit Challenging L.A. Cannabis Ordinances Raises Preemption Issues
Three years ago, 85-year-old Emily Wheeler was charged with violating local ordinances after her tenant allegedly sold unlicensed cannabis at a Los Angeles storefront she owned. The octogenarian's bid to dismiss those charges has now reached the California Supreme Court, where it's turned into a legal skirmish over preemption.
Wheeler's attorneys at the alternative public defender's office argue, in part, that the sections of Los Angeles Municipal Code that Wheeler is accused of violating are preempted by state law. Specifically, they point to a provision in California's Health and Safety Code that makes it a crime to knowingly rent a property to someone who's selling a controlled substance. Wheeler said she did not know her tenant was selling marijuana.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
NY Cannabis Marketing Rulings / Rescheduling Effects / Honigman's Work on Trademark Suit / Goodbye
9 minute read
Workplace Weed and Labor Pacts / State AGs and Hemp / Maryland Licensing Suit / Vicente Sues Recruiter
9 minute read
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Kirkland Is Entering a New Market. Will Its Rates Get a Warm Welcome?
- 2African Law Firm Investigated Over ‘AI-Generated’ Case References
- 3Gen AI and Associate Legal Writing: Davis Wright Tremaine's New Training Model
- 4Departing Attorneys Sue Their Former Law Firm
- 5Pa. High Court: Concrete Proof Not Needed to Weigh Grounds for Preliminary Injunction Order
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
