Massachusetts high court hears challenge over ballot petition's effects on medical marijuana, home grow and social equity

At an oral argument before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Attorney Fine told the court that a proposed ballot initiative to repeal chapter 94G is "severely flawed" and that the Attorney General's summary is "grossly deficient" because it fails to disclose major effects on the medical marijuana program, social equity funding and the right of individuals to grow marijuana at home. "Nowhere in the summary and nowhere in the petition can the hobbyist that is growing marijuana ... see that the home grow provision is getting eliminated," Fine said.

Fine argued the petition does more than constrain adult recreational use: it would "dramatically change and dramatically diminish the medical program," eliminate mandatory Host Community Agreements the legislature fixed in 2022, and roll back social equity measures funded largely by recreational-marijuana tax revenue. She told the court that 935 CMR 501 references 94G repeatedly and that repealing 94G would require starting rulemaking from scratch, with consequences for contracts, enforcement and public-consumption rules.

Opposing counsel, Attorney McCrie, countered that the petition is analogous to prior ballot measures this court has reviewed (including Hensley and Weiner) and that the related-subjects test tolerates ancillary provisions that address downstream effects of a petition's core aim. "The summary does not need to address every single detail of an initiative petition," McCrie said, arguing the Attorney General's abridgement informs voters that the petition would "repeal the laws that legalize, regulate and tax the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana in Massachusetts," and that voters can consult the voter information packet for further detail.

The justices pressed both sides on where to draw the line between permissible downstream measures and impermissible unrelated subjects. Bench questions focused on whether provisions such as enhanced penalties for emerging adults (ages 18'21), the transfer of product between individuals, elimination of the social equity program, and removal of Host Community Agreement requirements are operationally related to the petition's core purpose of curtailing recreational marijuana. Fine said these changes amount to "cherry picking" that forces voters to choose between competing policy outcomes; McCrie said many of those effects flow predictably from repealing a broad regulatory and tax scheme and therefore are related under precedent.

The hearing also included factual assertions about specific features: Fine read the Attorney General's summary and said it omitted that the petition would eliminate the existing home-grow allowance (currently six plants), and she emphasized that the social equity trust and grant programs represent "millions" in funding. McCrie responded that some programs lose funding if tax revenue from recreational sales ends and that addressing those downstream effects is within the ambit of a petition seeking to dismantle an integrated regulatory scheme.

The court heard approximately equal argument from both sides and asked follow-up questions about Hensley, Kearney, Weiner and Madeira case law. The bench did not issue a ruling during the argument; the court will take the matter under advisement. No decision date was announced at the close of argument.