The definitions in our glossary are primarily sourced from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. We have made slight modifications where needed for brevity and to better tailor the definitions to the specific needs of users of this website. For more detailed explanations of the terms, users are encouraged to review the definitions on these websites or conduct their own independent research.
CASE NAME
Valencia AG, LLC v. New York State Office of Cannabis Management et al
Overview
Valencia AG, a cannabis company owned by white men, sued the New York State Office of Cannabis Management for discrimination, alleging that New York’s Cannabis Law and the implementing regulations unlawfully favor minority-owned and women-owned businesses in the licensing application process.
Details
The regulations aim to help “social & economic equity” (“SEE”) applicants, which Plaintiff claims violates the Equal Protection Clause and Section 1983. To support their claim, Plaintiff asserted that 1) being a white male was a disadvantage under New York Cannabis Law and regulations which gave minorities and women applicants priority status, 2) their application was ranked low in the November cycle due to the favoring of minority and women applicants which made it unlikely that Plaintiff would get their license, and 3) any of Plaintiff's future applications for a license (if not awarded in the November cycle) would be subjected to the same unequal treatment.
Plaintiff initially asked the court to grant a preliminary injunction to stop Defendants from enforcing the regulations until the case was decided. However, Plaintiff withdrew this request before the court could rule on the issue.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff lacked standing since it would not have received a license even if all SEE applicants were removed from the pool. Defendant also argued that Plaintiff “fundamentally misunderstands” the SEE plan, which does not provide any preference in the selection process and rather involves voluntary outreach efforts and reducing barriers to applying for a cannabis license.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted due to mootness (Plaintiff was granted a provisional license) and Plaintiff’s lack of standing.
Court
US District Court, Northern District of New York
Status
Filed January 24, 2024 | Decided
Topic
Government programs