Can a city council deny a cannabis retailer application for a resolution of local support (“ROS”) without providing any explanation? According to the New Jersey Appellate Division, the answer is no.
On March 3, 2026, in Higher Breed NJ LLC v. City of Burlington Common Council, the New Jersey Appellate Division held that municipal governing bodies must provide a discernible basis when denying an ROS—a prerequisite to obtaining a Class 5 Cannabis Retailer License from the Cannabis Regulatory Commission (“CRC”).1
Higher Breed, a cannabis business, applied for an ROS to operate a Class 5 cannabis retail dispensary in Burlington. The City Council ultimately denied the ROS without offering any reasons for the decision.
The Appellate Division recognized that municipal councils possess broad discretionary authority when evaluating ROS applications and are permitted to take into account all relevant evidence. Nevertheless, the court emphasized that such discretion does not permit a council to deny an application without providing an explanation. In order for the City Council’s resolution to receive deference, there must be a clearly discernible basis supporting the decision reached.
The court found this requirement consistent with CREAMMA (the Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act), which requires the CRC to provide specific reasons when denying a license. Burlington’s own municipal code reinforced the point: it defines a resolution as a written description of “the sense or will” of the City Council—language that inherently calls for some articulation of reasoning.
The court identified two primary reasons this requirement matters.
First, transparency. Without an explanation, applicants are left to speculate about what went wrong and whether it can be remedied. The public likewise deserves to understand the basis for City Council’s decisions.
Second, meaningful appellate review. Courts cannot evaluate whether a denial was arbitrary or unreasonable absent a stated rationale. As the court observed, deference to a governing body’s decision requires “confidence that there . . . [are] appropriate findings addressing the critical issues in dispute.”
The court noted that a decision on the issuance of an ROS will not typically demand the same level of detail as a land use board’s decision, but it must contain enough to make the council’s reasoning discernible.
This decision meaningfully shifts the balance of power in the ROS process. Municipalities can no longer simply vote “no” and move on—they must provide a written basis for any denial. That requirement makes it possible to challenge denials driven by irrelevant considerations or personal grievances rather than legitimate regulatory concerns.
For cannabis operators, Higher Breed establishes a critical safeguard: applicants are now entitled to clear reasons for an ROS denial, enabling them to address any deficiencies in future applications and to challenge decisions grounded in illegitimate reasoning.
