Oregon's voter-approved pot labor law is unconstitutional, federal judge rules
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge in Oregon struck down a voter-approved measure regarding cannabis labor agreements Tuesday, ruling that it was unconstitutional.
Measure 119, which was passed by Oregon voters last year, required cannabis businesses to have a labor peace agreement with a labor organization in order to obtain or renew a license. The agreements would have required employers to remain neutral when a labor organization communicated with employees about collective bargaining rights.
U.S. District Judge Michael Simon barred enforcement of the measure, finding that it violated the free speech of cannabis business owners and was preempted by federal labor law, The Oregonian/OregonLive reported.
The National Labor Relations Act allows employers to express 'any views, argument or opinion' that are not threatening or coercive without facing an unfair labor practice claim.
The lawsuit was filed by Ascend, a cannabis retailer in Portland, and Bubble's Hash, a processor that makes edibles and concentrates also based in Portland.
State lawyers who defended the measure had argued that the measure didn't curb speech because employers can still express opinions about unions as long as they're neutral, The Oregonian/OregonLive reported.
Simon disagreed and entered a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the measure.
'Measure 119 is not limited to restricting only threatening, coercive, false, or misleading speech, but instead prohibits all speech by employers that is not 'neutral' toward unionization,' he wrote.
During a hearing last month, Simon said he recognized the 'historical and valuable role' of unions and that those who work in the cannabis industry can face greater dangers than typical workers, The Oregonian/OregonLive reported. But he said he struggled with the ambiguity of the measure's text regarding what it would allow an employer to say or do.
Oregon's Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment from The Oregonian/OregonLive. It has not yet said whether the state intends to appeal Simon's ruling.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Chicago mayor says Trump's America looks like Confederacy won, suggests ICE are 'terrorists'
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Trump attends bill signing ceremony at the White House
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
Treasury Yields Fall Amid Concerning Labor Data, Mild Inflation
0900 ET – U.S. labor and inflation data deepen a decline in Treasury yields. Weekly jobless claims were unchanged from the previous week's upwardly revised pace, at 248,000. Economists surveyed by WSJ expected 246,000. Continuing claims, a measure of the unemployed population, was 1.96 million, the highest level since November 2021. May's wholesale price inflation was 0.1%, accelerating from April's 0.2% deflation and below consensus of a positive 0.2%. The combination of slower-than-expected inflation and concerning labor data underscores bets that the Fed may need to change its hawkish position. Yields were already declining and fell further after the data. The 10-year Treasury yield is at 4.360% and the two-year at 3.891%. ( @ptrevisani) 0614 GMT – A downside surprise in U.S. CPI data gave only a small boost to Treasurys, probably because tariff-driven price hikes still look imminent, says Capital Economics' James Reilly in a note. That said, these price hikes look discounted in markets, shielding Treasury yields from rising pressure, the senior markets economist says. 'We don't expect much upwards pressure on Treasury yields even as the inflationary impact of tariffs eventually feeds into U.S. consumer prices,' he says. Capital Economics expects core inflation to rise in coming months but it thinks that investors are already braced for a broadly similar outcome on tariffs, he says. (
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
L.A. Immigration Crackdown Sparks Concerns About Possible Martial Law
TOPSHOT - Demonstrators holding signs and flags face California National Guard members standing ... More guard outside the Federal Building as they protest in response to federal immigration operations in Los Angeles, on June 9, 2025. US President Donald Trump on June 9 ordered active-duty Marines into Los Angeles, vowing those protesting immigration arrests would be "hit harder" than ever. Protests in Los Angeles, home to a large Latino population, broke out on June 6, triggered by immigration raids that resulted in dozens of arrests of what authorities say are illegal migrants and gang members. (Photo by Apu GOMES / AFP) (Photo by APU GOMES/AFP via Getty Images) In recent weeks, the Los Angeles immigration crackdown has become the epicentre of a dangerous national experiment—one in which immigration enforcement is serving as the pretext for something far more ominous: a steady descent into possible martial law. The deployment of U.S. military forces into California without the governor's consent, the violent sweep of immigration raids, and the weaponization of emergency powers all signal that the constitutional order is under siege. President Donald Trump's decision to send 4,000 National Guard troops and Marines into California was met with outrage from state leaders and legal experts alike. California Governor Gavin Newsom has called the action 'an illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional act,' and the state has filed suit against the federal government, citing violations of the U.S. Federal Code, which prohibit federalizing state militias except in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when a state cannot enforce its own laws. None of those conditions apply in this case. Yet the justification offered by the administration—that Los Angeles was on the brink of collapse due to immigrant protests—is as false and inflammatory as was demonstrated on a recent episode of Jimmy Kimmel, which showed footage of quiet Los Angeles streets. Following a series of ICE raids that detained over 100 people, protests erupted across the city. While the Los Angeles Police Department stated that the demonstrations were largely peaceful, federal officials framed them as acts of rebellion. In televised comments, President Trump, without evidence, declared that Los Angeles would have been 'completely obliterated' without military intervention. However, some legal scholars point out that such claims are disturbingly reminiscent of how autocrats have historically manufactured crises to seize power. For instance, in comments made recently by Yale historian Timothy Snyder, he warned, 'Be wary of paramilitaries. When the men with guns claim to be against the system, the system is under threat.' These warning signs are increasing. Earlier this year, President Trump re-declared a national emergency at the southern border, significantly intensifying deportation efforts, particularly in sanctuary jurisdictions. His Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, asserts that these efforts are crucial to national security. However, critics contend that the raids are politically motivated, intended to incite chaos and test the boundaries of presidential authority. This is not mere conjecture. There have been calls to arrest Governor Newsom for defying the troop deployment—an idea that would equate to criminalizing political opposition. The implications are chilling. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Republicans are racing to pass what Trump has dubbed his 'big, beautiful bill,' a sprawling legislative package that, among other things, includes over $46 billion for the border wall and ICE funding. The administration is leveraging the unrest in Los Angeles to push hesitant GOP senators to fall in line. The proposed bill also imposes a $1,000 asylum application fee—an unprecedented barrier to legal refuge—and earmarks billions more for new Border Patrol and customs agents. These aren't merely policy choices; they are tools of exclusion and intimidation. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), a leading voice for the legislation, is actively urging his colleagues to use the Los Angeles protests as proof of why ICE and the border crackdown require even more support. Beyond Capitol Hill, the cultural symbolism of this shift is equally revealing. Trump has announced a massive military parade in Washington, D.C., timed to coincide with the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary—and his own birthday. With tanks, howitzers, and cruise missile launchers on display, the spectacle is designed to evoke strength. But it also mirrors the authoritarian aesthetics of regimes like Russia and North Korea. The question is, where is this all heading? During his first term, Trump was dissuaded from invoking the Insurrection Act during the George Floyd protests only after senior military officials objected. This time, with loyalists appointed to key positions, those checks seem to be absent. Historically, there exists a dangerous precedent for all this. In 1933, Adolf Hitler used the Reichstag Fire to suspend civil liberties and consolidate power. Legal analysts are increasingly drawing comparisons between that moment and today's ongoing use of emergency powers in the name of immigration control. 'If you saw all this in any other country — soldiers sent to crush dissent, union leaders arrested, opposition politicians threatened — it would be clear that autocracy had arrived,' said constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe. Even tech magnates are playing a role. Elon Musk, who now owns X (formerly Twitter), has eliminated most content moderation, amplifying polarizing rhetoric and misinformation. His platform has become a megaphone for conspiracy theories that portray immigrants as invaders and critics as traitors. Beneath all these disturbing developments in the crackdown on immigrants lies a core question: Is the United States still a democracy governed by civilian law, or is it becoming a militarized state ruled by executive whim? The courts may still provide a line of defense. California's lawsuit regarding the unauthorized deployment of federal troops will test the judiciary's willingness to uphold the Constitution. However, history teaches us that legal battles alone cannot protect democracy when institutions are co-opted or eroded. What is unfolding is more than a dispute over immigration policy; it is a stress test of America's democratic fabric. The use of immigration raids to justify military actions, the demonization of peaceful protests, and the consolidation of emergency powers—these are not isolated events. They form a pattern. While Americans seem divided on the issue of military use in the Los Angeles immigration crackdown, with half in favour and the other half, particularly Californians, opposed, June 14th, 2025, the 'No Kings National Day of Action,' promises to be a pivotal day for America as immigration protests, which have spread to other cities, will likely reach their peak on that day. While this unfolds, Trump will head to Canada to attend the G-7 meeting while keeping a watchful eye on events back home. Meanwhile, the fate of the Republic may hinge not on whether Trump builds a wall, but on whether Americans permit him to dismantle the walls of constitutional restraint in the name of constructing it.
