Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world
Americas+1 212 318 2000
EMEA+44 20 7330 7500
Asia Pacific+65 6212 1000
Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world
Americas+1 212 318 2000
EMEA+44 20 7330 7500
Asia Pacific+65 6212 1000
Massachusetts voters will decide whether to end the state’s recreational marijuana industry, as its high court rejected claims that the repeal initiative covers too much ground to appear on ballots this November.
The Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion on Friday, by Justice Elizabeth Dewar, backed the state attorney general’s certification of the repeal measure, which would affect only recreational sales, leaving intact Massachusetts’ medical marijuana industry.
“The Attorney General argues that the petition’s various parts all relate to the common purpose of restricting the use of recreational marijuana through a new integrated scheme for marijuana regulation,” Dewar said in the unanimous opinion. “We agree and are not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary.”
Ballot measures in Massachusetts are required to have a single overarching purpose, so as not to allow petitions to hitch popular provisions onto less popular, unrelated proposals, a practice known as logrolling.
While eliminating the regulated industry of Massachusetts recreational marijuana cultivators and retailers, the measure allows for possession of up to an ounce of the drug with no fine or civil penalty.
The repeal proposal faces tough public sentiment, as polling has suggested only 20% of voters support the measure, according to a University of New Hampshire survey in February.
If approved, the ballot question would destroy the state’s adult-use market for recreational marijuana and its more than 400 retail operators by repealing the near-decade-old law that birthed the industry.
In the opinion, the justices also brushed aside concerns that the attorney general’s official summary of the proposal omits various impacts of the repeal and that it amounts to a state taking of certain social equity programs that provide grant funding, technical assistance and training.
Adam Fine of Vicente LLP, who represents the cannabis retailers that challenged the petition, said he’s disappointed with the ruling but hopes voters will “carefully consider the consequences of repealing cannabis legislation, including the impacts on public safety, criminal and social justice, local economies and personal freedoms.”
A representative for the attorney general said the office is pleased with the decision and remains committed to its responsibility of certifying initiatives.
The case is Pineau v. Attorney General, Mass., No. SJC-13927, opinion issued 6/12/26.
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.