Cultivator Challenges Connecticut Licensing as Unconstitutional in New Federal Suit

CT CannaTimes Staff — October 16, 2025

Another lawsuit has landed in federal court this week — this time from a Connecticut resident arguing that the state’s cannabis licensing system is unconstitutional and discriminates against ordinary applicants.

Filed on October 14, 2025, by Brant Smith of Connecticut, the case Smith v. Lamont et al. targets Governor Ned Lamont, Attorney General William Tong, and Bryan Cafferelli, Commissioner of the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) .

Smith’s complaint, brought by attorney Genevieve Park Taylor of Sound Legal LLC, argues that Connecticut’s cannabis licensing framework — created under the Responsible and Equitable Regulation of Adult-Use Cannabis Act (RERACA) — violates the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution .

What the Lawsuit Says

Smith claims he applied for a license to open a 15,000-square-foot cultivation facility, but that the state’s program unfairly excludes non-“social equity” applicants from obtaining cultivation permits.

Under RERACA, 50% of all adult-use licenses are reserved for “Social Equity Individuals,” defined by income limits and residency in “disproportionately impacted areas.” According to Smith’s filing, that policy gives “in-state Social Equity Individuals priority over all other applicants,” effectively shutting out general and out-of-state entrepreneurs .

The complaint states that no non-social-equity cultivation licenses have ever been issued in Connecticut, and that DCP has not held — or even scheduled — a lottery for those applicants .

The Constitutional Claim

Smith’s legal argument centers on the Dormant Commerce Clause, a principle barring states from passing laws that restrict interstate trade or favor in-state interests. He cites a 2025 Second Circuit decision, Variscite NY Four v. New York State Cannabis Control Board, which ruled that the Dormant Commerce Clause still applies to cannabis despite federal prohibition .

His suit argues that Connecticut’s program “amounts to economic protectionism” by favoring local social-equity applicants and excluding others, creating unfair competition and inflated market prices. The complaint seeks an injunction halting the state’s current licensing process and a declaration that the cannabis framework is unconstitutional .

The Bigger Picture

This case marks yet another legal challenge to Connecticut’s cannabis program — part of a growing wave of lawsuits claiming the state’s “equity” system has gone too far, locking out both small-scale entrepreneurs and out-of-state investors.

It follows months of controversy over the DCP’s handling of license lotteries, insider partnerships, and alleged favoritism toward politically connected firms. Advocates say this lawsuit could become a test case determining whether Connecticut’s entire adult-use system withstands federal constitutional scrutiny.

If the court agrees with Smith, the decision could force a statewide pause or restructuring of the licensing system — potentially opening the door to a new round of general and interstate applicants.

CT CannaTimes Analysis

While Connecticut built its cannabis market around “equity first” ideals, the rollout has raised hard questions about fairness, transparency, and equal access. If Smith succeeds, it may signal the beginning of a new legal reckoning — one that redefines what “equity” means in a post-prohibition marketplace.

As of now, the state has not yet responded publicly to the filing.