Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Mississippi’s Medical Cannabis Ad Ban

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Mississippi’s Medical Cannabis Ad Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to Mississippi’s near-total ban on medical cannabis advertising, leaving in place a lower court ruling that upheld the state’s restrictions. The decision is a significant blow to dispensary owners like Clarence Cocroft, who argued the advertising ban violates his First Amendment rights.

Cocroft, the owner of Tru Source Medical Cannabis, filed the lawsuit after being barred from promoting his state-licensed dispensary on billboards he owns. Located in an industrial park with limited foot or vehicle traffic, Cocroft contended that advertising was essential to reach customers and grow his business.

“I was hoping the Supreme Court would hear our case so my business could be treated just like any other legal business in the state of Mississippi,” Cocroft said in a statement.

The Supreme Court’s decision lets stand a ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that Cocroft does not have a constitutional right to advertise his dispensary due to cannabis remaining illegal under federal law—even though Mississippi has legalized it for medical use.

The Institute for Justice (IJ), a nonprofit legal organization representing Cocroft, expressed disappointment with the outcome.

“The First Amendment protects the right of people to speak truthfully about their legal businesses,” said IJ attorney Ari Bargil. “Mississippi has created an entire legal marketplace permitting the sale of medical marijuana, but it is censoring state-licensed dispensaries who want to talk about it.”

Scott Bullock, President and Chief Counsel of the Institute for Justice, added that while the Supreme Court declined to take the case, the organization remains committed to defending commercial free speech rights across the country.

“We will continue fighting to ensure that every person who runs a legal business is able to talk truthfully about it,” Bullock said.

The case highlights the ongoing tension between state-legal cannabis programs and federal prohibition, and raises questions about how far states can go in restricting marketing and communication for legally operating businesses.

Stay informed with daily updates on cannabis business news by subscribing to our newsletter.