Texas Marijuana Decriminalization Efforts Hit Setback in Supreme Court Ruling

The Texas Supreme Court has refused to review a case that challenged the state’s decision to strike down a marijuana decriminalization law passed by voters in San Marcos. The move is a significant blow to local democracy advocates and highlights the ongoing clash between Texas marijuana decriminalization efforts and state-level authority.

Key Takeaways

• The Texas Supreme Court declined to hear the San Marcos appeal over marijuana decriminalization.
• Activists argue the ruling undermines local democracy and voter-approved reforms.
• Attorney General Ken Paxton and Gov. Greg Abbott maintain cities cannot override state cannabis laws.
• Other Texas cities, like Dallas, continue implementing local decriminalization measures.
• The ruling underscores tensions between state preemption and local cannabis policy reform.

Texas Supreme Court Sides with the State

On Friday, the state’s highest court declined to review an appeal after the Fifteenth Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling that had temporarily protected San Marcos’ marijuana decriminalization law.

The appellate judges determined that state law clearly preempts cities from restricting law enforcement’s ability to enforce drug-related statutes. Specifically, the court ruled that San Marcos could not remove tools such as arrests, citations, or searches based on cannabis odor.

In its opinion, the appellate court stated:

“Texas law gives local governments and law enforcement officers a panoply of tools – such as the authority to issue citations and arrests – to enforce drug laws. Section 370.003 prohibits the City of San Marcos from making a policy that takes any of those tools off the table…”

The decision effectively shuts the door on San Marcos’ attempt to uphold its voter-approved reforms, at least for now.

Local Leaders Call It a Blow to Democracy

Reform advocates expressed frustration with the court’s decision. Catina Voellinger, executive director of Ground Game Texas, which spearheaded the San Marcos initiative, argued that the court “sided with Greg Abbott’s handpicked judges” and ignored the will of 82 percent of local voters.

Similarly, Eric Martinez, executive director of Mano Amiga Action, described the ruling as a “direct attack on local democracy.” He emphasized that communities want to stop criminalizing small amounts of cannabis while addressing real public safety concerns.

Broader Texas Marijuana Decriminalization Movement

San Marcos was one of five cities that approved decriminalization initiatives in November 2022, joining Austin, Killeen, Denton, and Elgin. These ordinances typically prevent police from making arrests or issuing citations for low-level marijuana possession, with some exceptions for felony-related investigations.

Despite the setback in San Marcos, courts in other parts of Texas have allowed similar reforms to proceed. Earlier this year, a judge in Dallas upheld the city’s decriminalization law against a challenge from Attorney General Paxton, allowing police to continue following the voter-approved policy.

By contrast, San Antonio voters rejected a broader initiative in 2023 that bundled marijuana reform with other progressive measures, including abortion protections. That defeat showed that while support for Texas marijuana decriminalization is strong, ballot measures can still fail depending on how they are structured.

State Officials Push Back

Governor Greg Abbott has repeatedly criticized municipal cannabis reforms, arguing that local governments cannot override state law. He has warned such measures could create “chaos” by allowing cities to “pick and choose” which laws to enforce.

While Abbott has acknowledged that people shouldn’t be jailed for low-level marijuana possession, he has not supported broader Texas marijuana decriminalization. Instead, his administration has focused on tightening hemp policy, with new age and labeling restrictions signed into effect this year after efforts to ban hemp-derived THC failed in the legislature.

Why Preemption Matters

At the heart of the San Marcos case is state preemption law, the idea that state statutes override conflicting city ordinances. Section 370.003 of the Texas code prohibits local governments from creating policies that “take enforcement tools off the table.” That means even if voters approve local reform, state officials can argue the ordinances are void.

This legal barrier makes it especially difficult for activists to advance reforms city by city, even when they enjoy overwhelming public support.

National Context

Texas is not alone in this battle. Across the country, courts in some states have upheld local decriminalization efforts, while others have sided with state authority. The Texas Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene puts the state firmly in the camp of limiting local power, even as polls consistently show that a majority of Texans support marijuana reform.

Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the San Marcos case marks a pivotal moment in the state’s cannabis reform battle. While activists vow to continue pushing for Texas marijuana decriminalization, the ruling reinforces the state’s authority to preempt local efforts. With growing public support for reform but strong resistance from state leaders, Texas remains one of the most contested battlegrounds for the future of cannabis law in the U.S.