Massachusetts cannabis businesses went to the state’s Supreme Judicial Court on Tuesday, filing suit to block a ballot initiative that would roll back the state’s voter-approved recreational marijuana law before it reaches November voters.

The plaintiffs, all participants in the state’s Cannabis Social Equity Program, include Caroline Pineau, owner of Stem Haverhill; Gyasi Sellers, CEO of Treevit LLC; and Lisa Mauriello and Boey Bertold, majority owners of Paper 4 Crane Provisions. They are represented by Vicente LLP.

The complaint targets an initiative titled “An Act to Restore Sensible Marijuana Policy,” which would repeal the laws permitting legal recreational cannabis sales in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs argue the measure violates the state Constitution on multiple grounds and ask the court to declare the initiative invalid, rule that Attorney General Andrea Campbell erred in her summary and certification of the measure, and enjoin Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin from placing it on the November ballot.

The core legal argument is that the initiative bundles too many unrelated subjects into a single yes-or-no vote. Under Massachusetts law, ballot initiatives cannot combine impermissibly unrelated subjects. The complaint identifies at least six distinct policy areas folded into the measure: criminal justice changes, elimination of the Social Equity Program, removal of local municipal control over cannabis establishments, elimination of professional discipline protections, elimination of public consumption and open container protections, and dismantling of regulatory safeguards for the medical marijuana industry.

The plaintiffs call this a textbook case of logrolling, the practice of packaging unrelated provisions together to force voters into accepting policies they oppose in order to secure ones they support. The suit uses a concrete example: a voter who wants to repeal adult-use marijuana but wants to preserve the Social Equity Program has no way to cast a vote that reflects both preferences. A voter who supports repeal but opposes eliminating the statewide ban on public marijuana consumption faces the same bind.

“These scenarios, among others, would force voters to accept provisions they oppose in order to secure provisions they support,” the complaint states.

Beyond the structural constitutional challenge, the plaintiffs argue the initiative amounts to an unconstitutional regulatory taking. Businesses that obtained licenses, built out facilities, hired staff, and invested capital did so in reasonable reliance on the legal framework Massachusetts voters approved. The complaint argues the measure would “destroy the reasonable, investment-backed expectations of affected businesses and individuals and would eliminate the livelihoods of thousands of Massachusetts residents.”

The regulatory taking argument is significant because it frames the harm not just as a policy disagreement but as a property rights violation with constitutional weight. Cannabis license holders in Massachusetts carry significant sunk costs. Cultivation facilities, retail buildouts, processing equipment, and inventory represent capital expenditures made under an explicit regulatory promise. A rollback of the underlying legal framework would strand those investments with no recourse.

The complaint also challenges Attorney General Campbell’s official summary of the initiative as misleading and deficient. The attorney general’s summary is what Massachusetts voters read when they encounter a ballot measure, and the plaintiffs argue Campbell’s description does not accurately represent the initiative’s full scope and effect.

The lawsuit arrives as the national legal cannabis industry watches several states grapple with rollback efforts and regulatory instability. In California, license holders have faced a different set of pressures, primarily enforcement failures against the unlicensed market and tax structures that make legal operators uncompetitive. In Massachusetts, the threat is more direct: wholesale repeal of the authorization framework rather than death by regulatory complication.

The Social Equity Program angle adds a layer the court will have to weigh carefully. The program was designed to prioritize cannabis business licenses for individuals and communities disproportionately affected by marijuana enforcement before legalization. Pineau, Sellers, Mauriello, and Bertold are all program participants, which means the suit is not solely a defense of established capital. It is also an argument that rolling back legalization would disproportionately harm the businesses and communities the program was built to support.

Whether the Supreme Judicial Court agrees with the constitutional framing is an open question. Courts in multiple states have allowed ballot initiatives with arguably bundled subjects to proceed, deferring to voters rather than pre-screening for coherence. Massachusetts has its own precedent on the single-subject rule for initiatives, and the plaintiffs will need to show that the combination of subjects here crosses a legal line, not merely a logical one.

The initiative’s proponents have not publicly responded to the suit as of the filing date. Galvin’s office, named as a defendant in the injunction request, has not commented publicly.

The Supreme Judicial Court will determine whether the case moves forward on an expedited basis. Ballot certification deadlines in Massachusetts operate on a fixed calendar, and any challenge to an initiative’s eligibility for November needs to resolve well before signature-gathering phases begin in earnest. The court’s handling of the timeline will signal how seriously it is treating the constitutional questions raised.

For now, the cannabis businesses that sued are asking the state’s highest court to do what they argue the attorney general failed to do: look at what the initiative actually contains and measure it against what Massachusetts law allows on a ballot.