In a move that underscores ongoing tensions between state and federal marijuana laws, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to Mississippi’s sweeping restrictions on advertising medical marijuana. The decision leaves in place strict rules that severely limit how dispensaries in the state can promote their businesses — a reality many say places small business owners at a serious disadvantage.
The challenge was brought by Clarence Cocroft, owner of Tru Source Medical Cannabis, a licensed dispensary operating in an industrial park in Mississippi. Cocroft, who owns four billboards, argued that the state’s advertising restrictions violate his First Amendment rights. He says visibility is a critical issue, as the dispensary’s remote location makes it difficult for patients to find without proper signage.
“I was hoping the Supreme Court would hear our case so my business could be treated just like any other legal business in the state of Mississippi,” Cocroft said in a statement following the Court’s refusal to review the case.
Mississippi voters overwhelmingly approved medical marijuana in 2020, yet the state has imposed one of the country’s most restrictive frameworks for its promotion. Dispensaries are prohibited from advertising on billboards, television, radio, newspapers, social media, or even email lists. The state offered no response to Cocroft’s petition to the Supreme Court.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled against Cocroft, stating that he does not have a First Amendment right to advertise marijuana because cannabis remains illegal under federal law. Despite some efforts from the Biden administration to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous substance, the drug remains tightly regulated at the federal level. Even if reclassification occurs, marijuana would still be considered a controlled substance, requiring further federal action to determine medical usage parameters.
According to the Institute for Justice, which represented Cocroft, Mississippi is not alone in these advertising restrictions. Arkansas and Alabama also enforce broad bans on medical marijuana promotions, placing dispensaries in what the institute calls “First Amendment limbo.”
Katrin Marquez of the Institute for Justice argues that these blanket bans serve no real public interest. “An outright ban on all medical cannabis advertising,” she said, “serves no legitimate public purpose.”
As the legal landscape around cannabis continues to evolve, the clash between federal prohibition and state-level legalization remains a key hurdle for dispensary owners — especially those trying to reach patients without breaking the law.