In a landmark determination that highlights the stress between state and federal hashish legal guidelines, a California appellate courtroom dominated on October twenty ninth that property house owners can refuse to permit the transportation of hashish throughout their land by way of easements, even when the hashish operation is authorized by native authorities.
The Second District Courtroom of Attraction’s unanimous determination attracts consideration to non-public property rights in a context the place hashish stays federally unlawful, however state legislation permits licensed cultivation, distribution and sale. Presiding Justice Albert Gilbert said, “Regardless of how a lot California voters and the Legislature would possibly attempt, hashish cultivation and transportation are unlawful in California so long as it stays unlawful beneath federal legislation.” JCCrandall LLC v. County of Santa Barbara, Case No. B333201, 2024 WL 4599304, Oct. 29, 2024.
Until the California Supreme Courtroom grants overview – which I might not rule out – the choice empowers non-public property house owners to refuse to contract with hashish companies, and restricts native authorities from approving hashish operations that implicate the property rights of neighbors who object.
The case at hand
The dispute centered round a hashish cultivation operation in Santa Barbara County, the place JCCrandall LLC challenged a conditional use allow granted by the County to its neighbor, Santa Rita Holdings Inc. The essential concern was that Santa Rita Holdings might solely entry its 2.5-acre hashish farm by way of an unpaved highway crossing JCCrandall’s property by way of a pre-existing easement. JCCrandall grows oats and barley.
JCCrandall’s major concern? It raised numerous complaints with the Santa Barbara County Supervisors about truck site visitors and evening operations, which didn’t acquire traction, however within the Courtroom of Attraction JCCrandall centered on what it claimed was potential legal responsibility related to having federally unlawful substances transported throughout its property, regardless that County regulators discovered that the Santa Rita operation was totally compliant with state and native legal guidelines.
Key authorized findings
The appellate courtroom’s determination hinged on a number of essential factors:
Property Rights: The courtroom emphasised that “the correct to exclude others is the essence of the correct of property possession” and categorised it as a elementary vested proper.
Federal Supremacy: The panel decided that permitting hashish transportation throughout non-public property “defies the Supremacy Clause” of the U.S. Structure.
State vs. Federal Legislation: Whereas hashish could be authorized beneath California legislation, the courtroom dominated that federal legislation’s prohibition takes priority on this context.
California hashish business implications
Authorized consultants recommend this ruling might have far-reaching penalties for California’s hashish business. Part 1550.5(b) of the California Civil Code makes contracts inside California involving hashish lawful and enforceable, and Santa Rita Holdings guess the ranch on that argument. However the Courtroom of Attraction held that the statute couldn’t compel a landowner to permit hashish to journey throughout its property on a pre-existing easement. Licensed operators might discover it tougher to do enterprise as a result of neighbors who’ve property rights affected by a hashish enterprise can object, and, beneath the JCCrandall ruling, native authorities should yield to these objections.
An instance could be a hashish dispensary that relies on entry to its car parking zone by way of an easement or is positioned in a shopping mall the place different lessees have rights to object to tenants however the approval of the owner. In cultivation, many hashish farms depend upon vehicular entry by way of easements as a result of they’re distant and don’t all the time have direct entry to public thoroughfares, or they depend upon water sourced from different properties pursuant to agreements made by prior house owners who grew conventional crops. These neighbors may not want to indicate any adverse impression on their property, however can argue that they may very well be discovered complicit in federally unlawful actions.
I believe essentially the most problematic language within the JCCrandall ruling is the next, which could draw the eye of the California Supreme Courtroom and trigger it to grant overview: “For so long as an easement is loved, its mode and method of use shall stay considerably the identical because it was on the time the easement was created. The County argues the easement was used for agricultural functions. However there’s a huge distinction between authorized and unlawful agricultural functions.” (Emphasis added.) If California has decided that hashish cultivation is authorized – because it has – and state courts routinely implement contracts involving hashish, it’s a fairly daring step to declare using a lawful pre-existing easement unlawful just because the agricultural crop is hashish and take away easement entry from Santa Rita.
Trying forward
This determination creates new challenges for hashish companies in California, and can lead to extra disputes amongst neighbors. Whereas the Biden administration has proven indicators of easing federal marijuana restrictions, this ruling demonstrates that the federal-state legislation battle continues to create vital authorized hurdles for the hashish business.
California courtroom selections additionally might be persuasive authority in different states, so we would see related litigation (and selections) elsewhere within the nation the place hashish has been legalized.
The case serves as a reminder that regardless of California’s progressive stance on hashish, federal prohibition continues to forged a protracted shadow over the business’s operations and improvement. Because the hashish panorama continues to evolve, this ruling might immediate companies to reassess their property preparations and native governments will definitely should rethink their allowing processes to provide extra cautious consideration to objections by neighbors who declare that their property rights are implicated by hashish operations.
Be aware: This submit was first revealed earlier this month on the Alger ADR Weblog.
