Charm City Hemp, LLC, et al. v. Governor Wes Moore, et al.

Summary

The opinion addresses State Defendants’ motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a first amended complaint in a challenge to Maryland’s hemp and cannabis licensing and regulatory regime. The plaintiffs asserted equal protection, due process, dormant Commerce Clause, and takings claims under the Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court granted the motion to dismiss and denied leave to amend.

Holdings

1. The Eleventh Amendment barred Plaintiffs' claims against the State of Maryland and its instrumentalities, and against state officials sued in their official capacities, because Maryland had not waived immunity, Congress had not abrogated it for § 1983 claims, and the Ex parte Young exception was not applicable to the claims as pleaded.
2. Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge Maryland's cannabis licensing criteria, social-equity restrictions, numerical limits, lottery system, and related application requirements because none applied for a first-round license and the complaint did not show that any Plaintiff was able and ready to apply but was prevented from doing so by a discriminatory policy.
3. Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge Maryland's requirement that licensed dispensaries obtain at least 25 percent of cannabis products from specified licensees because Plaintiffs did not allege that they were licensed dispensaries, sought dispensary licenses, or attempted to place their products in licensed dispensaries.
4. Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge alleged searches and seizures of hemp products because they did not allege that any Plaintiff or Maryland Hemp Coalition member had been searched, had property seized, or faced a sufficiently concrete and imminent threat of enforcement.
5. Ira Cooke lacked standing because alleged inconvenience, higher prices, and dissatisfaction with customer service did not constitute an injury in fact, and Maryland Hemp Coalition lacked standing because it did not allege a concrete organizational injury or identify a specific member who had suffered or would suffer harm.
6. Leave to amend was denied as futile because the proposed amended complaint did not cure the Eleventh Amendment and standing defects.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity barred Plaintiffs' claims against Maryland, its agencies, and state officials sued in their official capacities.
2. Whether Plaintiffs had Article III standing to challenge Maryland's cannabis licensing requirements, shelf-space requirements, METRC policies, and alleged hemp-product searches and seizures.
3. Whether Plaintiff Ira Cooke had standing as a consumer and whether Maryland Hemp Coalition had organizational or associational standing.
4. Whether leave to amend should be denied as futile because the proposed amended complaint did not cure the sovereign-immunity and standing defects.

Disposition

dismissed