The Vermont Supreme Court has affirmed the Cannabis Control Board’s decision to revoke Holland Cannabis, LLC’s license to cultivate cannabis for commercial sale. The ruling, issued in September 2025, addresses several challenges raised by Holland Cannabis, including the legality of the Board’s actions and the fairness of the hearing process.
The Case Background
The case stems from a 2024 notice of violation issued by the Cannabis Control Board against Holland Cannabis. The Board alleged that Holland’s retail cannabis products contained myclobutanil, a pesticide prohibited for use in Vermont cannabis cultivation. The Board also cited violations of its rules, including intentionally concealing evidence and using unauthorized pesticides.
The Board’s notice of violation included a finding that these violations posed an imminent threat to public health. Based on this, the Board ordered a stop-sale of all Holland’s products and a recall. The notice also proposed a $20,000 fine and license revocation.
Holland contested the notice, raising several arguments. These included the claim that the Board’s existence violated the separation of powers doctrine, that the Board chair was biased, and that the stop-sale order was issued without due process.
The Board held a hearing, where it heard testimony from several witnesses and reviewed evidence. The Board ultimately dismissed one violation but upheld two others, concluding that Holland had used myclobutanil in its cultivation operations, violating the law and its corrective action plan. The Board then decided the appropriate penalty was license revocation.
Holland appealed the Board’s decision to an appellate officer, who affirmed the Board’s order. The case then made its way to the Vermont Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court reviewed the case based on the record created before the Board, applying the same standard of review as the appellate officer. The Court’s review focused on Holland’s arguments regarding the Board’s actions.
Stop-Sale Order Authority
Holland argued that the Board exceeded its authority by issuing a stop-sale order applicable to all of its products, even those from harvest lots that had previously tested clean. The Court disagreed. It noted that the statute allows stop-sale orders for “blocks” of cannabis. The Court deferred to the Board’s interpretation, finding that it was reasonable for the Board to conclude that all of Holland’s cannabis product constituted a “block” given the evidence of widespread myclobutanil contamination.
Health and Safety Concerns
Holland also argued that the stop-sale order was not justified because there had been no reports of illness from consumers. The Court rejected this argument. It stated that the Board’s rules allow action to prevent a potential threat to health and safety, not just after harm has occurred. The Court found that the presence of adulterated cannabis in the market created a risk of illness, justifying the stop-sale order.
Impartial Decision-Making
Holland claimed it was deprived of its due-process right to an impartial decision-maker, alleging that the Board chair made public remarks indicating he had prejudged the case. The Court found that Holland had not met its burden to prove the chair was biased. The Court noted that Holland did not present any evidence, such as media reports or affidavits, to support its allegations. The Court stated that the chair is presumed to be unbiased.
Evidence Rule 612 Violation
Holland contended that the Board violated Vermont Rule of Evidence 612 by failing to take appropriate action when a witness was consulting a document outside the record. The Court found that this issue was not properly preserved for review because Holland’s counsel did not seek production of the document during the hearing.
Preponderance of the Evidence
Holland argued that the Board failed to prove that it intentionally introduced myclobutanil into its product. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the Board’s findings were not clearly erroneous. The Court noted that the Board found that Holland employed myclobutanil in its cultivation operation.
Separation of Powers Challenge
Finally, Holland argued that the Board’s establishment and operation violated the separation of powers doctrine. The Court declined to address this argument, finding that it was inadequately briefed.
Conclusion
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the Cannabis Control Board’s decision to revoke Holland Cannabis’s license. The Court found that the Board acted within its authority and that Holland did not demonstrate any violations of due process or other procedural errors.