Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Finch v. Treto

Finch v. Treto

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

June 9, 2022, Decided; June 9, 2022, Filed

No. 22 C 1508

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This case is a challenge to the constitutionality of the criteria that govern the issuance of licenses for operating dispensaries of recreational cannabis in the State of Illinois. Plaintiffs, who are aspiring owners of such dispensaries, argue that the State's preference for Illinois residents in this licensing scheme violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. In this motion, they seek a preliminary injunction against the secretary of the agency that administers the licensing scheme in question. The injunction would [*2]  (1) prevent the agency from formally issuing dispensary licenses that were allocated using the disputed criteria in 2021, and (2) prevent the agency from enforcing the disputed criteria (or similar criteria) going forward, including in a lottery that will occur later in 2022. For the reasons given below, the court concludes that the equities do not support the relief requested here. Plaintiffs' motion is denied.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Juan Finch, Jr. and Mark Toigo each hope to own a recreational cannabis dispensary in Illinois. (Decl. of Juan Finch, Jr. [7-2] (hereinafter "Finch Decl.") ¶¶ 2, 4-8; Decl. of Mark Toigo [7-3] (hereinafter "Toigo Decl.") ¶¶ 3, 5-7.)1 Plaintiff Finch has resided in Illinois since December 2021 (Finch Decl. ¶ 2), while Plaintiff Toigo is a resident of Pennsylvania (Toigo Decl. ¶ 2). Defendant Mario Treto, Jr. is the Secretary of the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (the "Department").2 The Department is the Illinois agency responsible for issuing licenses to recreational cannabis dispensaries under the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act, 410 ILCS 705/1-1 et seq. ("Cannabis Act"); see also id. § 15-5(b).

I. The Cannabis Act

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103222 *; 2022 WL 2073572

JUAN FINCH, JR., and MARK TOIGO, Plaintiffs, v. MARIO TRETO, JR., in his official Capacity as Acting Secretary of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, Defendant.

Subsequent History: Appeal filed, 06/14/2022

CORE TERMS

licenses, lotteries, cannabis, residents, Plaintiffs', allocated, enjoin, injunction, preliminary injunction, dispensary, residency requirement, proposed rule, state court, Cannabis Act, cases, parties, issuance, score, dormant, merits, region, weigh, provisions, investing, Impacted, deadline, interstate commerce, third party, commerce, eligible

Governments, State & Territorial Governments, Licenses, Civil Procedure, Justiciability, Standing, Burdens of Proof, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Constitutional Law, Case or Controversy, Elements, Injury in Fact, Equal Protection, Nature & Scope of Protection, Judgments, Entry of Judgments, Nonparties Affected by Judgment, Preliminary Considerations, Equity, Relief, Joinder of Parties, Compulsory Joinder, Necessary Parties, Injunctions, Grounds for Injunctions, Balance of Hardships, Remedies, Preliminary & Temporary Injunctions, Congressional Duties & Powers, Commerce Clause, Dormant Commerce Clause, Interstate Commerce, Prohibition of Commerce, Limitations, Maxims, Clean Hands Principle, Contracts Law, Equitable Relief, Unclean Hands, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Affirmative Defenses, Irreparable Harm, Likelihood of Success, Federal & State Interrelationships, Anti-Injunction Act, Ripeness, Imminence, The Judiciary, Ripeness, Rationale for Ripeness, Tests for Ripeness, Appeals, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Preservation for Review, Tests