The Minnesota Court of Appeals is set to determine if the state can prosecute tribal members for cannabis-related offenses on Native reservations. This legal review arises after Minnesota legalized recreational cannabis in 2023, marking a significant shift in the state’s legal landscape regarding marijuana use.
The case centers on Todd Thompson, a citizen of the White Earth Nation, who faces felony charges for allegedly selling cannabis from his tobacco shop located on the White Earth reservation. On August 2, 2023, just a day after the legalization took effect, local law enforcement, including Mahnomen County sheriff’s deputies and White Earth tribal police, executed a raid on Thompson’s store. They seized approximately 7.5 pounds of cannabis, 433 grams of marijuana wax, and nearly $2,800 in cash, along with Thompson’s cell phone and surveillance equipment.
Following the raid, Mahnomen County charged Thompson with felony possession, which carries a potential penalty of up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Thompson’s attorney, Claire Glenn, argued that the state lacks the jurisdiction to prosecute him under these circumstances. According to Public Law 280, Minnesota has the authority to prosecute tribal members for certain criminal acts committed on specific reservations, including White Earth. However, this law does not extend to civil or regulatory violations of state law.
Glenn contended that with the legalization of cannabis, the act of possessing and selling the substance falls under regulatory matters rather than criminal offenses. Additionally, Thompson’s defense claims that prosecuting him infringes on rights guaranteed by the 1855 Treaty with the Ojibwe, which grants them the usufructuary rights to hunt, fish, and gather on their ceded lands.
Initially, the district court, presided over by Judge Seamus Duffy, ruled that the state indeed holds jurisdiction in this case, allowing the prosecution to move forward. Duffy stated that the issue at hand is criminal, emphasizing that treaty rights protect tribes, not individual members.
Typically, criminal cases can only be appealed following a conviction, which could potentially lead to Thompson serving prison time before he could challenge the ruling. In light of this, Glenn requested the Court of Appeals to make an exception and evaluate the jurisdiction issue, arguing that Thompson’s case raises novel legal questions with widespread implications for Native tribes and their members across Minnesota.
The Court of Appeals agreed to take up the case, highlighting the importance of clarifying the state’s authority to enforce cannabis possession laws and the rights reserved under relevant treaties. Chief Judge Jennifer Frisch noted that the outcome of this case would have immediate effects on all tribes in Minnesota that fall under Public Law 280 and their members.
Glenn expressed optimism regarding the Court of Appeals’ decision to intervene, noting its rarity in ongoing criminal cases. Both parties are now required to submit written briefs before the court schedules oral arguments. This ruling could set a precedent affecting how cannabis laws are applied on tribal lands in Minnesota and potentially beyond.
English 
Spanish 
German 
Czech