Recent D.C. Court of Appeals Decision on Whether Advisory Neighborhood Commissions Have Standing to Sue in D.C. Courts

On September 18, 2025, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied the Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2C and ANC 2C Commissioner Thomas Lee’s petitions challenging the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board’s decision to approve DC Smoke’s new medical cannabis retailer license due to lack of standing and untimeliness.

The Medical Cannabis Amendment Act of 2022 (Amendment Act) allows unlicensed cannabis dispensaries to apply for and obtain a medical dispensary license during a 90-day open application period. Under this same act, an Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) is permitted to protest the issuance of a medical cannabis retailer license to an unlicensed establishment during the transition period. To protest the issuance, the ANC must write a formal letter of protest to DC’s Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board. After DC’s Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board receives the protest, a protest hearing is held for evidence to be submitted. The rights to protest a cannabis retailer licensing application and ability to initiate a contested Board hearing are outlined in Section 7-1671.06a(h)(2) of the Amendment Act.

On May 1, 2024, UND Necessities, t/a DC Smoke’s application for a new medical cannabis retailer license was approved despite the ANC’s protest letter and the subsequent protest hearing before the Board. On May 31, 2024, the ANC filed a petition for review of the Board’s order granting the license with DC’s Court of Appeals.

The Court required the ANC to show cause on why it should not be precluded from challenging the Board’s licensing decision pursuant to D.C. Code Section 1-309.10(g), which states that ANCs cannot “initiate a legal action in the courts of District of Columbia”. The ANC argued that they had standing despite D.C. Code Section 1-309.10(g) because the Amendment Act repealed the D.C. Code, in addition to D.C. Code Section 1-309.10(g) and Section 7-1671.06a(h)(2) of the Amendment Act being inconsistent. In support, the ANC noted that they should be allowed to appeal the Board’s decision in court because individual residents who do not have standing to pursue claims raised by the ANC before the Board, must then independently continue the protest in Court. The ANC also argued that if they do not have standing, they should be granted leave to add or substitute ANC’s Commissioner Thomas Lee as the petitioner.

Unconvinced by the ANC’s arguments, on September 18, 2025, the Court concluded that the ANC is without standing to petition the Court for review of the Board’s order. The Court held that the two provisions are not so inconsistent to the point where: (1) they cannot co-exist; and (2) D.C. Code section 1-309.10(g) is repealed by Section 7-1671.06a(h)(2) of the Amendment Act as the D.C. Code focuses on actions before the Court and the Amendment Act provision focuses on actions before the Board. Furthermore, the Court stated that individual residents have standing to assert the rights of the ANC in Court because it is the individuals who suffer from actual harm as a result of the ANC’s inadequate presentation of neighborhood’s views before the Board. The ANC’s request for leave to have Commissioner Lee added as the petitioner was also denied because Commissioner Lee’s petition was outside of the 30-day petition for review deadline.