The U.S. Supreme Court last week opted not to hear a case challenging whether the state of Mississippi can limit how medical cannabis companies advertise their businesses.
This leaves in place a U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that stated because cannabis is federally illegal, plaintiff’s arguments, including those of Clarence Cocroft, a medical cannabis business owner, that state laws restrict his first amendment rights do not apply to the selling and advertising of medical cannabis.
Henry Crisler, executive director of the Mississippi Medical Marijuana Association, said in some ways he was disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case, but was also concerned by taking it up that the court could have destroyed the entire state medical cannabis program.
“I do think that this is not the end of the road for them. I am sure they will continue this effort, this fight,” Crisler said. “We hope to see the state eases some restrictions on advertising and marketing in the future.”
Mississippi created its medical cannabis program during the 2022 Legislative Session and the first dispensaries opened in January of the following year. The program is overseen by both the Mississippi Department of Revenue and the Mississippi State Department of Health, which have respective regulatory powers over medical cannabis businesses and their licensure.
Part of the state’s regulation is a near-total advertising ban. Currently, medical cannabis business can only have their own websites, social media and store signage as an advertising method to educate people about medical cannabis. They can also hold public events, sponsor advocacy and not-for-profit charity events, have their names in phonebooks and in business directories.
Crisler said his organization will also be working with regulators to find ways to possibly change regulations to allow for more advertising.
An interesting thought on state redistricting lawsuit
Also last week, a federal three judge panel chose to accept the latest version of a redistricting proposal for Desoto County proposed by the State Board of Election Commissioners.
The decision by the panel affirms that four districts in the Desoto County area will be redrawn, and in the plan one district was turned into a Black majority district.
In December 2022, the NAACP and several state voters filed a lawsuit claiming the Legislature’s 2022 redistricting diluted Black voting power, violating federal law. In 2024, the panel agreed and ordered the Legislature to propose a new map creating new Black majority districts.
In the 2025 Legislative Session, lawmakers passed district changes for the House and Senate, resulting in several amended districts and the creation of two Black-majority districts with no incumbent.
Once the Legislature sent its new plan to the court, the NAACP challenged the redraw in the Northeast Mississippi and Desoto County areas but not the Hattiesburg-area district changes. The court chose not to accept the Legislature’s plan for Desoto County and the State Board of Election Commissioners came up with a revised plan.
The panel in its decision found that both the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ redistricting proposals for Desoto County remedied Black voting power dilution. The panel found those districts diluted Black voting power after the Legislature redistricted in 2022.
However, a point of contention between plaintiffs’ and defendants’ attorneys was how high the Black voting population percentage in the aforementioned districts should be.
The plaintiffs argued the percentage should be higher in the new Black majority districts to ensure a realistic opportunity of remedying the Black voter dilution, while the defendants, whose plans had new majority districts going a few points above 50%, argued that metric gave the opportunity while the plaintiff’s plan would wrongfully guarantee that Black voters would elect a candidate of their choice.
In the panel’s decision, it chose not to consider whether remedying Black voting power dilution should amount to an opportunity the defendants proposed or a “more realistic opportunity” the plaintiffs proposed.
Ari Savitzky, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the plaintiffs, said that part of the decision was not as important because the panel recognized that both proposals would have fixed the dilution of Black voting power.
“The court clearly found that it was a sufficient remedy,” he said. “In order to decide between the two proposals… (They) could consider a number of different factors. (The court) doesn’t think that it just needs to pick whichever plan is the strongest for black voters. It can consider other features as well, once we are assured that the new black majority district is sort of sufficiently strong to give Black voters opportunity to elect candidate choice.”
— Grant McLaughlin covers the Legislature and state government for the Clarion Ledger. He can be reached at gmclaughlin@gannett.com or 972-571-2335.
