The Supreme Court on May 5 decided not to take up a case contesting Mississippi’s near-total ban on advertising for medical marijuana products.

The court’s decision in Cocroft v. Graham took the form of an unsigned order. No justices dissented. The court did not explain its ruling.

The petition was filed on March 21 by Clarence Cocroft II and his business, Tru Source Medical Cannabis LLC. The lead respondent is Chris Graham, who was sued in his official capacity as commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Revenue.

Medical marijuana is lawful in Mississippi for qualified patients, and Cocroft and his company are authorized by the state to sell it, along with related supplies. Tru Source was issued a license as a medical marijuana dispensary in the state, the petition said.

Although marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, Congress, since 2014, has provided that the federal Controlled Substances Act “should go unenforced as it relates to state-legal medical-marijuana operations.”

This means that medical marijuana-using patients issued a card by Mississippi may purchase marijuana products in the state without being prosecuted federally, the petition said.

Even though state law facilitates medical marijuana sales, advertising marijuana products, even by a state-licensed dispensary, is “almost-completely illegal,” the petition said.

The Mississippi Department of Health, which has “ultimate authority for oversight of the administration of the medical cannabis program,” forbids all advertising by dispensaries, except for some signage, the petition said.

The petitioners sued, claiming the state was violating their First Amendment right to communicate truthfully with potential customers. The state claimed their commercial speech was not protected by the First Amendment because it is conduct—as opposed to speech—that is illegal at the federal level, the petition said.

“Medical marijuana is legal under state law in most of America. And yet many dispensaries in those states operate in First Amendment limbo—unsure whether their commercial speech is constitutionally protected or, given federal law on the matter, could be deemed as promoting a federal crime,” the petition said.

A federal district court ruled in favor of the state, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed that decision in November 2024, finding that the fact that marijuana was illegal at the federal level could justify a state advertising ban, the petition said.

The state declined on April 9 to respond to the petition.

Ari Bargil, attorney for Cocroft and Tru Source, said, “We’re disappointed that the Court declined to hear this case and make it clear that if a product is legal to sell, then it is legal to advertise.”

Bargil is senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm.

“The First Amendment protects the right of people to speak truthfully about their legal businesses. 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,” the attorney said in a statement after the Supreme Court ruled.

The Epoch Times has contacted the Office of the Mississippi Attorney General for comment.

No reply was received by publication time.

This article by Matthew Vadum appeared May 6, 2025, in The Epoch Times.