LINCOLN — The Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday unanimously affirmed a lower court’s decision to dismiss a challenge to two medical marijuana initiatives that voters approved in 2024, clearing a major legal obstacle to implementation.
The court’s 7-0 ruling, delivered in a nearly 50-page opinion by Chief Justice Jeffrey Funke, concluded that petition opponents had not demonstrated that enough signatures were invalid to render the measures legally insufficient.
What the court said
In the opinion, the justices wrote that after reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by former state Sen. John Kuehn and the Secretary of State, they were not persuaded that signature problems reached the level required to overturn the petitions. The decision leaves intact the measures that Nebraskans approved at the ballot in 2024 and allows regulators to continue implementing medical cannabis law.
“After considering all the evidence presented and arguments made by Kuehn and the Secretary, the court determined that they had not shown that enough signatures lost their validity to render the petitions legally insufficient.”
Responses from advocates and officials
Crista Eggers, executive director of Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana, characterized the ruling as a vindication of voters’ will. She said the case was primarily about whether elected officials could use the courts to overturn a public decision.
Attorney General Mike Hilgers issued a contrasting statement, saying the petition effort employed fraud and abused the notary process. He said he disagreed with the court’s ruling but will comply with the law as written. A spokeswoman for Gov. Jim Pillen noted that the governor approved permanent regulations this summer and that the Medical Cannabis Commission will proceed with its duties.
Background of the challenge
The dispute dates nearly two years back to when former state Sen. John Kuehn filed suit in Lancaster County District Court seeking to invalidate the initiatives. Kuehn contended that Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana lacked enough valid signatures to qualify for the 2024 ballot, alleging widespread invalid signatures and improper notarization by petition circulators. Secretary of State Bob Evnen later joined the challenge alongside the attorney general.
The contested petitions did have signatures invalidated in various instances for reasons tied to notarization and other technical issues. But the courts ultimately found that the number and nature of invalid signatures did not rise to the level necessary to strip the measures from the ballot.
What happens next
With the Nebraska Supreme Court’s decision, the state moves forward with the regulatory framework for medical cannabis. Gov. Pillen’s office pointed to approvals of permanent regulations earlier this year and said the Medical Cannabis Commission will continue implementing the law in line with voters’ approval.
- Regulatory implementation: The Medical Cannabis Commission will continue rulemaking and oversight.
- Legal closure: The Supreme Court ruling ends this round of litigation challenging petition validity.
- Potential future actions: Officials who disagreed with the ruling signaled they will comply, though they framed the result as unsatisfactory.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2024 | Two medical cannabis petitions approved by Nebraska voters. |
| About two years later | Former state Sen. John Kuehn filed suit in Lancaster County to invalidate the petitions. |
| Friday (Supreme Court ruling) | Nebraska Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion upholding dismissal of the legal challenge. |
The court’s decision marks the conclusion of a major legal challenge to the measures, but it also highlights ongoing tensions between elected officials and voter-approved initiatives. Supporters framed the ruling as a defense of direct democracy. Critics voiced concerns about petition integrity and the notarization process used by circulators.
For patients, providers and entrepreneurs awaiting the state’s medical cannabis system, the ruling provides clarity: regulatory implementation will continue under the rules the state has been developing. For state officials who contested the petitions, the opinion closes the door on this particular avenue of lawfare, even as they publicly criticized the process that produced the ballot measures.
The Nebraska Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion underscores the high threshold required to overturn voter-approved initiatives on technical grounds and reaffirms the role of the judiciary in reviewing — but not supplanting — the will of the electorate.
