Opinion 26-54

March 26, 2026

Digest:  A judge may not apply for a cannabis branding license while the sale of recreational marijuana remains a violation of United States federal law.

Rules:   Cannabis Law § 127; 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.6(B)(4); 101.1; Opinions 23-100; 20-208.

Opinion:

          A part-time judge asks if he/she may apply for and hold a “New York Adult Use Processor Type 3 License” from the New York State Office of Cannabis Management.  The judge is specifically interested in a “branding” license, which would allow him/her to market a brand of cannabis products within New York and authorize him/her to enter into agreements with licensed cannabis processors to manufacture those products.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]).  A judge must “respect and comply with the law” at all times (22 NYCRR 100.2[A]).  A part-time judge may accept private employment that is compatible with judicial office and does not conflict or interfere with the judge’s performance of judicial duties (see 22 NYCRR 100.6[B][4]).

          We have previously advised that a judge may not invest in a licensed New York State cannabis company which sells products solely within the state, “if the post-sale transport of the legal product violates foreign state or federal law” (Opinion 23-100).  We likewise said a judge must not invest in a publicly traded company whose “sole purpose is the sale of medicinal and recreational marijuana and other cannabis-related products,” if the company is operating in the United States in violation of federal law (Opinion 20-208).

          Here, the activities authorized by the state branding license remain a violation of federal law, and post-sale transport of the legal product may likewise violate federal law and/or the law of other states.  In light of the patchwork legal status of marijuana, we conclude a judge should not obtain a branding license to market marijuana where the resulting product could violate foreign state or federal law.  Thus, the judge may not apply for the license.

          We decline the inquiring judge’s invitation to consider Cannabis Law § 127, as its applicability is unclear and we cannot address any legal questions (see 22 NYCRR 101.1).