In a pivotal decision with significant implications for tribal sovereignty and cannabis regulation, a Minnesota judge recently ruled the state may criminally prosecute tribal members for cannabis-related offenses occurring on reservation land — even after Minnesota legalized adult-use cannabis in 2023. The ruling in State v. Thompson underscores the growing divide between states such as Minnesota, where cannabis enforcement against tribal members continues, and more collaborative models such as New York’s, where tribal cannabis businesses operate with state support and minimal interference.[1]
Minnesota: Sovereignty Undercut by Court Ruling
In State of Minnesota v. Thompson, No. 44-CR-24-293 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Mahnomen Cnty. Mar. 3, 2025), the Mahnomen County District Court denied a motion to dismiss filed by Todd Jeremy Thompson, a 54-year-old enrolled member of the White Earth Band of the Chippewa Tribe. Thompson, owner of Asema Tobacco & Pipe Shop, began selling adult-use cannabis from his store following the legalization of recreational marijuana in Minnesota. On August 2, 2023 — just one day after the new law took effect — law enforcement executed a search warrant at his shop, seizing more than seven pounds of cannabis flower and nearly one pound of cannabis concentrates. He was subsequently charged with felony cannabis possession under Minnesota law.
Thompson raised two main arguments in his defense:
- That cannabis use was protected under the 1855 Treaty between the Ojibwe and the United States as a ceremonial and medicinal plant;
- That Public Law 280 prohibits state jurisdiction because Minnesota’s cannabis laws are now civil and regulatory, not criminal.
Judge Seamus Duffy rejected both claims, holding that marijuana possession remains “clearly criminal” under Minnesota law and emphasizing Thompson’s “high degree of blameworthiness” given the amount seized. The decision has sparked concern across Indian Country,[2] highlighting how tribal members remain vulnerable to state enforcement even for on-reservation conduct.
Compacts and Collaboration: Minnesota’s Complicated Approach
While at least five Minnesota Tribes have opened adult-use dispensaries under tribal law, the Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) has yet to finalize meaningful compacts with most of the state’s 11 federally recognized tribes.[3] A revised draft compact released in January 2025 reflects some progress, including clearer acknowledgments of tribal sovereignty and efforts toward regulatory cooperation.
Notable provisions in the updated draft compact include:
- Recognition of tribal sovereignty and immunity, including affirmation that cannabis activity confined to tribal land and not involving state licensees falls outside state jurisdiction;[4]
- Authorization for intergovernmental commerce, allowing licensed tribes to sell to, and purchase from, state-licensed cannabis operators;
- A “most-favored-nation” clause, enabling tribes to adopt more favorable terms offered to other tribal governments.
However, concerns remain. The compact:
- Requires tribes to use Metrc or a compatible system that grants the state full visibility into cannabis operations;
- Restricts off-reservation operations, including a cap on dispensaries and cultivation limits;
- Allows state audits and inspections, including on tribal land, when products enter the state-regulated market;
- Gives OCM unilateral authority to revise regulatory standards, with required tribal compliance.
Advocates and tribal leaders continue to express concern that the compact, while improved, may still shift too much control to the state, particularly for tribes that wish to remain fully sovereign and operate independently. As of early 2025, only one tribe has finalized a compact. Others continue to operate under tribal law or remain in negotiations, weighing whether the new framework offers true collaboration or simply a more polished version of oversight.
National Trend: Tribes Leading in Cannabis Industry Growth
Despite Minnesota’s stance, tribal nations across the country are increasingly asserting their place in the cannabis economy. According to NORML, as of May 2024, there were nearly 60 tribally owned cannabis stores in operation across nine states[5] — a 25% increase since January 2023.[6] These enterprises reflect a growing movement of self-determination, with many tribes pursuing vertically integrated cannabis businesses on sovereign land.
What makes these operations possible?
- Tribal-state compacts that recognize tribal regulatory authority (as seen in Washington and Nevada);
- State deference to tribal law for on-reservation activity;
- Supportive legislation, like in California and New York, that integrates tribes into the broader cannabis market without compromising sovereignty.
New York: A Model for Cooperative Regulation
New York offers a markedly different approach. In 2024, the Oneida Indian Nation launched a vertically integrated cannabis enterprise — including cultivation, processing and retail — through its Verona Collective dispensary near Turning Stone Casino. The Nation operates entirely under tribal law, without interference from the state, even though vertical integration is prohibited for cannabis operators under New York’s cannabis laws.
New York has also passed legislation allowing state-licensed cultivators to sell surplus cannabis to tribal retailers, offering mutual benefit for both state-licensed growers and tribal businesses. Notably, New York does not require tribes to sign compacts in order to operate. This hands-off posture reflects a preference for cooperation over control, respecting tribal sovereignty by simply leaving compliant tribal operations alone.[7]
That said, New York-based businesses and stakeholders should monitor developments closely. While the state has thus far respected tribal autonomy, the evolving legal and political landscape could give rise to new enforcement priorities, licensing changes or policy shifts in the future.
Conclusion
Minnesota’s recent ruling and restrictive draft compact highlight a growing tension between cannabis legalization and tribal sovereignty. As more tribal nations enter the cannabis industry, Minnesota will have to decide whether it wants to be a partner, like New York, or a roadblock.
1. The federal government recognizes 574 Native American tribes, and roughly 350 are in the contiguous 48 states.
2. For Native peoples, “Indian Country” means homeland. The term reflects a relationship with the land that is deeply embedded in Native history and culture. In its broadest sense, Indian Country means anywhere that Native peoples have lived and continue to exist and thrive.
18 U.S. Code § 1151 defines "Indian country" (with a lowercase “c”) as a specific geographic area within the United States that includes federal reservations, dependent Indian communities, and Indian allotments where the Indian title has not been extinguished.
3. Those Tribes include: the Bois Forte Band of Chippewa, the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, the Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, the Lower Sioux Indian Community, the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, and the Prairie Island Indian Community, the Red Lake Nation, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, Upper Sioux Community, White Earth Nation.
4. This may be subject to change based Judge Duffy’s March 2025 ruling in Thompson.
5. Those states are California, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Washington.
6. This figure reflects the most recent publicly available data as of May 2024. However, due to rapid industry growth, inconsistent reporting, and the sovereign status of many tribal operations, the actual number of tribally owned cannabis businesses is likely higher.
7. New York has no formal compliance standard for tribally regulated cannabis businesses. “Compliant” generally means operating on tribal land under tribal law.
