Supreme Court Decision Casts Further Doubt on Constitutionality of Residency Requirements, Like the One in Maine’s Adult Use Marijuana Laws

The U.S. Supreme Court, today, issued a decision which seems to support the argument that the residency requirements in Maine’s marijuana laws are unconstitutional.  In Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas the Court considered a Tennessee law requiring that an individual must have been a resident of the state for the previous two years in order to obtain a license to operate a liquor store.  Without getting into the weeds of the analysis, the Court found that “[b]ecause Tennessee’s 2-year residency requirement for retail license applicants blatantly favors the State’s residents and has little relationship to public health and safety, it is unconstitutional.”

Readers will recall that Maine’s adult use laws bear a number of similarities to the Tennessee law at issue in this case.  Our marijuana statute requires that “a majority of shares” or “other equity ownership interests” in a marijuana business must be held by Maine residents.  See 28-B MRS § 202(2).  And the law defines a “resident” as, among other things, someone who has filed income tax returns in Maine each of the past four years.  28-B MRS §102.  This is precisely the type of durational residency requirement that the Supreme Court just rejected, albeit in the context of alcohol rather than marijuana.

Will Maine’s marijuana law residency requirements be overturned by the federal courts? I suppose that depends, first and foremost, whether someone opts to challenge these laws.