The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state’s cannabis laws on March 19, erasing an appellate court’s decision that a cultivator’s neighbor in Santa Barbara County could block the use of an easement because cannabis remains federally legal.
In this specific case, Santa Barbara County granted Santa Rita Holdings Inc. a conditional-use permit to cultivate cannabis on 2.54 acres owned by Kim Hughes. The county found that the surrounding roadways were adequate for the cultivator to transport its harvests for distribution into California’s licensed market under Santa Barbara’s land-use code requirements.
However, the only access to and from the 2.54 acres included the use of a private easement over a neighbor’s land that was subject to the conditional-use permit. That neighbor, JCCrandall LLC, objected to the cultivator’s use of a roughly half-mile, unpaved roadway running over the easement that was created by a deed in 1998.
JCCrandall claimed:
- the use of the easement for cannabis activities is prohibited by the terms of the easement deed and federal law;
- state law requires JCCrandall’s consent for cannabis activities on its land, and JCCrandall refuses to consent; and
- the road violates county standards for private roads.
Although a trial court denied JCCrandall’s petition, the California Court of Appeal for the Second District, Division 6, reversed that decision in January 2025.
“We regret to inform that cannabis is illegal in California because federal law says so,” Justice Arthur Gilbert wrote in the appellate decision. “Not to worry—our holding does not concern the sale or personal use of cannabis. Instead, here we consider cannabis as it applies to easements.”
In another reversal, the California Supreme Court issued an order on March 19 directing the “de-publication” of the appellate court’s decision, meaning it will have no effect as a precedent on future cases in California.
State regulators from the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) took the Supreme Court’s decision in JCCrandall v. County of Santa Barbara as a win for the state’s licensed cannabis program.
“We are pleased the Court agreed to address that Court of Appeal decision at the Department of Cannabis Controls’ request, supporting California law and its legal cannabis industry,” DCC Director Nicole Elliott said in a press release.
The now-vacated appellate decision had suggested more broadly that California’s cannabis regulations were unlawful because cannabis remains a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act, according to the DCC. But the March 19 Supreme Court decision rescinds that opinion.
“Other California courts of appeal have long upheld California’s cannabis regulations, ruling that they do not conflict with federal law,” according to the DCC. “In addition, the California Legislature has provided that commercial cannabis activity conducted in compliance with California law and local standards is lawful, and not a basis for voiding rights secured by an easement.”
