Earlier this month, a Minnesota district judge handed down a ruling that shows the fragile intersection of state cannabis regulations and tribal sovereignty. Todd Thompson, a White Earth citizen, faces felony marijuana charges despite operating on tribal land and under the belief that his actions were protected by sovereign rights.
While Minnesota recently legalized recreational cannabis, the state’s ability to enforce these laws on reservations—a direct challenge to indigenous sovereignty—is being watched closely. The debate goes beyond the courtroom, shining a light on the inconsistent ways states are integrating cannabis reforms with tribal jurisdictions.
Sovereignty vs. State Laws in Minnesota Cannabis
First reported by the Minnesota Reformer, Todd Thompson’s case is one of the first to test how Minnesota’s cannabis legalization interacts with tribal governance. Thompson’s argument hinged on two primary points. First, Public Law 280—a federal law that permits Minnesota to enforce state criminal laws on tribal lands but not regulatory ones—should shield him from prosecution. With cannabis now legal and regulated in Minnesota, Thompson contends his possession and sale was regulatory, not criminal. Second, Thompson cited 1855 treaty rights, which guarantee the Ojibwe access to resources such as hunting and gathering—a basis for sovereignty claims.
The judge dismissed these defenses, determining that possessing large amounts of marijuana without a state license remains criminal. The ruling uses a narrow interpretation of Public Law 280 to reinforce state oversight, regardless of tribal autonomy. This decision sets a dangerous precedent, as it effectively undermines decades-long fights for sovereignty by dictating what tribes can and cannot regulate within their borders.
But, Minnesota’s own cannabis reform efforts go against the state’s prosecutorial stance. Passed with promises of addressing racial disparities and restorative justice, the cannabis law seemingly seeks to right the wrongs of the War on Drugs. Thompson’s case, however, reveals how old systems of oppression persist, especially where tribal sovereignty is concerned.
A Stark Contrast in North Carolina
While Minnesota contemplates adherence to tribal sovereignty, North Carolina shows how tribal nations are boldly asserting their rights within the cannabis space. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI) opened North Carolina’s first legal adult-use dispensary, the Great Smoky Cannabis Company, on their tribal land, the Qualla Boundary.
This historic move comes despite the fact that cannabis remains unequivocally illegal in the rest of North Carolina. Because of their sovereignty, the EBCI independently legalized medical and recreational cannabis, creating their own cannabis infrastructure, including issuing medical cannabis cards and regulating both recreational and medical markets.
Unlike Minnesota’s rigid approach, North Carolina serves as an example of how state governments can coexist with tribal initiatives. The EBCI remains the primary regulators of cannabis sales within their land, and their efforts have yielded an economic boom. Projected revenues from cannabis sales are expected to reach $385 million in the first year alone, benefiting tribal healthcare, education, and social services.
The Bigger Picture
The implications of Minnesota’s ruling extend far beyond Todd Thompson’s case. Indigenous leaders point to the decision as yet another example of how state and federal governments continue to challenge indigenous sovereignty under the guise of seemingly progressive policy reforms.
Minnesota’s justification for Thompson’s prosecution—that large quantities of unlicensed marijuana remain a matter of public safety—is inconsistent with its stated goals of addressing racial disparities in cannabis laws. Native Americans, historically subjected to disproportionate policing, face legal gray areas where authorities fail to fully acknowledge sovereignty and apply cannabis legalization equally.
This, unfortunately, mirrors a broader national trend where marginalized communities miss out on the benefits of cannabis legalization. While cannabis laws may evolve, they often overlook these communities’ unique histories, perpetuating cycles of exclusion and criminalization.
Why Minnesota’s Judge Ruling Against Cannabis Misses the Mark
Minnesota’s decision highlights several key failures in its approach to progressive cannabis reforms. Foremost, it prioritizes state control over indigenous sovereignty, a troubling reversal when considering centuries of treaty violations and systemic marginalization.
Furthermore, the enforcement of state cannabis laws on tribal lands raises questions about equity and fairness. If non-tribal Minnesotans are afforded opportunities to operate legal cannabis businesses under state-regulated licenses, why shouldn’t tribes be treated equitably and allowed to exercise their self-governance?
The ruling also risks economic opportunities for reservations. Like the EBCI in North Carolina, tribes in Minnesota could generate considerable revenue through the legal cannabis market, creating jobs and funding vital services for their members. By prosecuting tribal operators like Todd Thompson, Minnesota may be blocking tribal efforts to foster self-sufficiency and economic growth in their communities.
Sovereignty and the Future of Cannabis
Across the U.S., the differences in how states manage cannabis within tribal territories illustrates a deeper struggle over sovereignty. States like North Carolina highlight the potential when governments acknowledge tribal autonomy, allowing Indigenous leaders to pioneer their own innovative approaches. Minnesota, on the other hand, exposes the risks when states fail to honor tribal sovereignty, which some could see as deepening systemic inequalities.
The path forward must begin with meaningful partnerships between tribal nations and state lawmakers. Clear agreements outlining tribal rights to self-govern cannabis markets will ensure tribal autonomy while providing pathways for collaboration outside of tribal boundaries.
The Minnesota ruling against Todd Thompson is a wake-up call for cannabis advocates to prioritize equity over control and empowerment over punishment. Tribal nations across the U.S. could gain significant benefits in the next chapter of cannabis legalization, but only if others genuinely respect their sovereignty.
