Minnesota’s cannabis laws are facing growing confusion as cities take different approaches in applying the rules, leading to disputes that may need court or legislative intervention to settle.
Local governments in Minnesota have the right to limit the number of cannabis retailers, decide where they can operate, and set business hours. However, some cities are pushing these limits further, creating rules that seem to conflict with state law. For example, about 20 cities have ordinances that clash with state cannabis regulations, according to attorney Carol Moss of the Hellmuth & Johnson law firm.
One common issue is the buffer zones between cannabis shops and churches. State law specifically requires buffers only from schools, day cares, treatment facilities, and certain parks, but some cities have extended these buffers to include churches, stirring controversy.
The state’s Office of Cannabis Management provides guidance but cannot force cities to follow the rules. This means that businesses or individuals must challenge local bans or restrictions through the courts.
A current legal battle is underway in Albert Lea, where the city council denied a cannabis retail license to Jacob Schlichter last July. Schlichter’s plans met all state requirements, but the city’s refusal was reportedly political. The council cited concerns over public safety and Schlichter’s 2017 misdemeanor involving a minor as reasons for their decision. Schlichter has since sued the city, claiming the denial was unfair and motivated by politics. The case now awaits judgment in the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
Meanwhile, in Silver Bay, a cannabis cultivation business application was denied due to a city ordinance passed earlier this year that bans all cannabis businesses. The city used a section of state law—Minn. Stat. Sec. 342.13(i)—to justify the ban. This law says if a county has one active cannabis registration per 12,500 residents, cities within the county don’t have to issue more licenses. Lake County, where Silver Bay is, has fewer than 11,000 residents. Silver Bay interpreted this to mean the county had met the threshold because another city, Two Harbors, intended to issue a license, even though Two Harbors hadn’t approved a license at the time. The applicant, Greg Lien, believes the law applies only to retail licenses, not cultivation, and feels the city’s ban conflicts with the statute. However, legal costs have kept him from challenging the city’s decision.
The financial and time costs to appeal these decisions are significant. Moss points out that trying to get a court to overturn local ordinances can be long and expensive, which discourages many from trying.
City leaders in Albert Lea have acknowledged their stance by saying they want more control over who gets cannabis licenses in their community. At a meeting before denying Schlichter’s application, some council members expressed frustration with state cannabis laws and voiced a desire to push back against what they saw as overreach.
These city-level disputes highlight the need for clearer legislation. Rep. Jessica Hanson, who co-authored the bill legalizing cannabis in Minnesota, mentioned ongoing talks about refining the language in the law to prevent such conflicting interpretations.
As Minnesota’s cannabis industry grows, resolving these legal uncertainties will be crucial. Without clearer rules, more cities might continue blocking or limiting cannabis businesses in ways that clash with state law, leaving business owners caught in costly legal fights.
The unfolding cases in Albert Lea and Silver Bay could set important precedents on how cannabis laws are applied locally and may inspire lawmakers to step in with clearer guidance. For now, individuals and businesses must tread carefully amid the evolving landscape.