Massachusetts anti-cannabis legalization activists cleared a major legal challenge to their proposed petition to repeal the state’s adult-use laws and are now on the verge of securing a November 2026 ballot position.
The state’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled on June 12 that Massachusetts Attorney General Joy Campbell did not err when she approved an initiative petition in September 2025 that aims to eradicate a $1.6 billion adult-use marketplace by reversing the legalization measure that voters approved with a 54% majority in the 2016 election.
The Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts filed 74,574 valid signatures for the first round of its campaign in December and now faces a deadline next month to submit another 12,429 signatures from registered voters to qualify its petition after state lawmakers declined to take up the proposal legislatively last month.
Four Massachusetts voters were hoping to halt the prohibitionist campaign in its tracks through challenging Campbell’s certification, arguing that the petition unconstitutionally contained unrelated subjects and that Campbell’s summary for the petition was not “fair” because it failed to mention that repealing the state’s adult-use cannabis law would eliminate provisions that created a cannabis social equity trust fund and program, among other specific measures.
The plaintiffs contended that eliminating the trust and social equity program would unconstitutionally amount to taking without compensation.
But the Supreme Judicial Court was not persuaded.
“We conclude that the attorney general did not err in certifying the petition on either of the claimed grounds, and that her summary of the petition is fair,” Justice Elizabeth N. Dewar wrote in the opinion. “We therefore remand the case to the county court for entry of a judgment declaring that the attorney general’s certification and summary comply with the requirements of [Amendment Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution].”
In other words, the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts’ ballot initiative can proceed as planned to land its petition, “An Act to Restore a Sensible Marijuana Policy,” on the November ballot.
The petition would specifically repeal chapters 94G (regulations) and 64N (taxes) of the state’s General Laws, which govern the possession, use, distribution, cultivation and taxation of cannabis not medically recommended to a patient. Chapter 94G also includes the right of adults 21 years and older to cultivate up to six plants at home for personal use.
The petition would not repeal the state’s medical cannabis laws, nor would it recriminalize adults 21 and older who possess up to 1 ounce of cannabis or 5 grams of concentrate (with those possessing between 1 and 2 ounces subject to a civil penalty). However, it would require certain penalties for those under 21 years who violate possession laws, including the completion of a drug awareness program and community service.
Also, the petition would offer current adult-use license holders an expedited pathway to entering a medical-only market.
The plaintiffs in the Supreme Judicial Court challenge argued that the petition violated the relatedness requirement of the Article 48 because it impacted both adult-use and medical cannabis, which entail “distinct and independent policy questions.”
The plaintiffs also argued that provisions that would eliminate a requirement that cannabis businesses enter into host community agreements and impose the mandatory drug awareness program for drug offenders under 21 years old should be considered unrelated subjects to the underlying proposal.
“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 wrote. “We agree and are not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary.”
Dewar added, “The other aspects of the petition highlighted by the plaintiffs are not unrelated to the petition’s common purpose. The elimination of the trust, social equity program, and mandatory host community agreements all bear an operational relationship to the petition’s common purpose.”
The proposed measure does not place voters in the “untenable position” of casting one vote on two or more dissimilar subjects, the court opined.
The high court also ruled that Campbell’s summary provides a “fair and intelligent conception of the main outlines of the measure,” despite its omissions of several consequences of repealing Massachusetts’ adult-use cannabis laws, because the state constitution merely demands a “summary” of the proposed measure and not of existing law.
“The summary informs voters that the petition would ‘repeal[] the laws that legalize, regulate, and tax’ retail sales of recreational marijuana,” Dewar wrote.
While this is a “broad generalization,” Dewar wrote, “This description encompasses the repeal of provisions defining the scope of marijuana legalization through public safety exceptions, regulating the location of retail sales and who participates in the retail market, and making use of the collected tax revenue. The summary thus provides voters with ‘the main outlines of the measure.’”
The justice also pointed out that the summary is not the only source of information for voters to draw upon, referencing the voter information guide that Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin prepares and sends to registered voters.
While the court ruling keeps the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts’ pathway to the ballot wide open, the petition’s prospects for passing in November remain less favorable for prohibitionists.
Sixty-three percent of Massachusetts voters oppose repealing the state’s adult-use cannabis program, according to a February 2026 Bay State Poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire’s Survey Center. Only 20% of likely voters in the survey supported the petition.
