Attorney General James Uthmeier and two prominent business groups have called on the Florida Supreme Court to reject a proposed constitutional amendment that seeks to legalize recreational marijuana. They argue that the proposal is misleading and conflicts with federal law. The legal challenge comes as the court prepares to decide whether the amendment qualifies for inclusion on the ballot in November 2024.
The proposal, backed by the political committee Smart & Safe Florida, would permit adults aged 21 and older to use recreational marijuana. In addition to securing the Supreme Court’s approval, the committee must gather at least 880,062 valid petition signatures by February 1, 2024. The Supreme Court’s role is not to evaluate the merits of the amendment but to assess whether the language is clear and complies with legal standards, including the single-subject requirement.
In a brief filed on Friday, Uthmeier’s office described the marijuana proposal as “fatally flawed.” The attorney general’s brief asserts that the amendment misleads voters and conflicts with the federal Constitution. It emphasized that the court should dismiss the proposed amendment from the ballot, citing concerns about how the wording may mislead voters regarding restrictions on smoking and vaping.
Smart & Safe Florida has countered these claims, asserting that the Florida Supreme Court previously rejected similar arguments in 2024. The organization pointed to a past ruling where the court upheld a similar amendment and provided guidance for ballot approval. They stated, “In 2024, the Florida Supreme Court rejected nearly identical arguments… We anticipate they will again follow Florida law and approve the current ballot language.”
The proposed ballot summary indicates that smoking and vaping would be prohibited “in public.” However, Uthmeier and the business groups argue that this wording is misleading. They contend that the detailed text of the amendment stipulates smoking and vaping would be barred in “any public place,” which includes parks, beaches, roads, and government buildings. This discrepancy raises concerns about whether voters fully understand the implications of their vote.
Uthmeier’s office stated, “The ballot summary would lead voters to believe that voting yes would ensure there is no marijuana — or its smell — ‘in public,’ while the actual amendment delivers no such thing.” This language, they argue, could mislead parents into believing that the amendment would restrict marijuana use in areas where children are present.
The briefs submitted by Uthmeier’s office and the business groups also highlight that marijuana remains illegal under federal law. They invoked the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, arguing that federal law would supersede any state constitutional change permitting recreational marijuana. The Florida Chamber of Commerce emphasized that federal law criminalizes various aspects of marijuana, including its acquisition and sale.
The Florida Supreme Court previously considered potential conflicts with federal law when it allowed the 2024 amendment to be placed on the ballot. The court stated that for a challenge to succeed, it must find a law unconstitutional in all its applications. The majority opinion allowed the amendment to proceed, with five justices in favor and four dissenting.
Looking ahead, Smart & Safe Florida has until January 12, 2024, to file arguments with the Supreme Court. The political committee claims to have gathered over 1 million signatures but has only 675,307 valid signatures confirmed by the state’s Division of Elections. The committee recently filed a lawsuit in Leon County circuit court, alleging that state election officials improperly invalidated approximately 72,000 signatures.
As the Florida Supreme Court prepares to review the case, the outcome could significantly shape the state’s approach to recreational marijuana in the coming years, with implications for both legal interpretation and public policy.
