California Supreme Court Tosses Anti-Cannabis Easement Ruling, Backing State Law

In a win for California’s licensed cannabis industry, the state’s Supreme Court has erased a lower court ruling that tried to block a grower’s access to land based on federal prohibition. The decision reaffirms the authority of California’s cannabis laws and offers a boost to cultivators tangled in local land disputes.

The move came on March 19, when the high court issued an order nullifying a controversial appellate decision that had backed a Santa Barbara landowner’s effort to restrict a cannabis operation’s use of a shared easement. The case had drawn attention across the industry for its potential to upend access to grow sites.

A Bumpy Road to the Farm

At the heart of the dispute: a half-mile stretch of dirt road.

Santa Rita Holdings Inc., a licensed cannabis business, secured a conditional-use permit to grow cannabis on 2.54 acres in Santa Barbara County. The land belongs to Kim Hughes, and the only way in or out is via an easement over neighboring property owned by JCCrandall LLC.

That’s where things got messy.

JCCrandall objected to cannabis traffic using the road. They claimed their easement, created back in 1998, didn’t allow activity linked to cannabis. Their argument leaned heavily on federal law, which still classifies marijuana as illegal—even as California’s regulated cannabis economy thrives.

The Appeal Court’s Curveball

Initially, a trial court sided with Santa Rita Holdings. But in January 2025, the Second District Court of Appeal flipped the script.

Justice Arthur Gilbert, writing for the panel, took a stark stance. “We regret to inform that cannabis is illegal in California because federal law says so,” he stated in the decision.

That opinion sent shockwaves. While Gilbert acknowledged it wasn’t about personal use or sales, he zeroed in on easements—suggesting that federal law could override California’s cannabis framework in property disputes.

Industry lawyers raised alarms. If that ruling stood, cultivators across California could lose land access over private easement challenges tied to federal prohibition.

Supreme Court Shuts It Down

Then came the Supreme Court’s order on March 19.

With a single stroke, the justices directed the appellate ruling to be “de-published.” That means the lower court’s opinion is effectively erased from California case law. It no longer sets a precedent and can’t be cited in future legal battles.

One sentence. Huge implications.

The Department of Cannabis Control, which asked the court to take action, declared it a victory. Director Nicole Elliott praised the court for stepping in and reinforcing California’s licensing framework.

“This supports California law and its legal cannabis industry,” she said in a statement.

What the Court Didn’t Say

Notably, the Supreme Court didn’t issue a full opinion of its own. It simply de-published the appellate ruling, without a detailed explanation. That means the underlying legal question—whether federal cannabis laws can be used to block easement access—remains unresolved at the highest level.

But for now, state regulators and licensed operators can breathe a little easier.

Here’s what this ruling does do:

• It prevents the January appellate decision from being used as legal ammunition in similar cases.

• It preserves the authority of counties like Santa Barbara to approve cannabis projects under state law.

• It signals that the courts are willing to protect California’s cannabis framework—at least when federal conflict arguments threaten to derail it.

Why This Case Matters

To many, this might seem like just a fight over a dirt road. But for licensed growers, especially in rural parts of the state, access is everything.

Cannabis operations often rely on remote parcels connected by shared roads and easements. If neighbors can weaponize federal law to shut down those access routes, it could jeopardize entire farms.

In this case, JCCrandall raised three main points:

• That the easement’s deed didn’t allow cannabis activity.

• That their consent was needed for such use, and they refused.

• That the road didn’t meet private road standards.

Only the first claim leaned on federal law. And it was that piece that lit the legal fire.

More Legal Grey Ahead?

The bigger issue lingers: how far federal law can be used to disrupt state-legal cannabis. The U.S. Department of Justice hasn’t prioritized action against licensed cannabis operations in recent years, but that could change with shifting administrations or policies.

Until federal law aligns with state legalization, growers will continue to face these grey-area legal fights.

For now, though, the California Supreme Court has drawn a line in the sand—albeit a quiet one.