Rhode Island Cannabis Act Signed on May 25, 2022

May 31, 2022

On May 25, 2022, Rhode Island became the 19th state to legalize recreational cannabis. The Rhode Island Cannabis Act (“the Act”) establishes a licensing process for recreational cannabis retailers and process for expunging prior convictions for cannabis possession. The Act also contains protections for employees that will affect employers.


Although cannabis is legal, employers are not required to accommodate the use or possession of cannabis, or being under the influence of cannabis, while in the workplace or performing work. The Act acknowledges that the boundaries of the workplace have expanded beyond the office and specifically includes remote work.


Employers cannot fire or take disciplinary action against an employee solely because they used cannabis outside the workplace. However, employers can discipline or fire and employees for coming to work “under the influence” of cannabis. There are three exceptions to this general rule:

  • The first exception is for circumstances where there is a collective bargaining agreement in place that prohibits cannabis use outside of work.
  • The second exception is for federal contractors or other employers subject to federal law, who could lose a monetary or licensing benefit for failing to implement a disciplinary policy for employee cannabis use or possession outside of work.
  • The third exception is for employees in jobs that are “hazardous, dangerous or essential to public welfare or safety.” For employees in these jobs, employers may adopt policies that prohibit the use of cannabis 24-hours before a scheduled work shift. The Act provides a non-comprehensive list of jobs that qualify which include: “operation of an aircraft, watercraft, heavy equipment, heavy machinery, commercial vehicles, school buses or public transportation; use of explosives; public safety first responder jobs; and emergency and surgical medical personnel.”


In the workplace, determining whether an employee is “under the influence” can be challenging. The Act does not provide a definition for the term, but it does provide “a person shall not be considered to be under the influence solely for having cannabis metabolites in his or her system.” Commonly available cannabis tests are not capable of measuring when someone last used cannabis, how much they used, or whether they are impaired. Additionally, Rhode Island prohibits random drug screening. In light of these challenges employers should consider trainings or guidelines for supervisors to help them identify employees who may be under the influence of cannabis while on the job.


Employers trying to manage these new developments should ensure they have clear drug use and drug testing policies and procedures that comply with the Act.


If your business has any questions regarding this topic, please contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at (413) 586-2288.

July 25, 2025
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. CASA that federal district courts cannot block executive orders for the entire country. The Court held that such broad injunctions exceed the authority Congress granted under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Courts may now only stop enforcement for the parties in the case—not for everyone else. What Happened in the Case President Trump issued Executive Order 14160 in early 2025. It denies birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Multiple lawsuits followed. Three federal courts blocked the order nationwide. The Supreme Court disagreed. It sent the case back and told the lower courts to revise the injunctions to cover only the named plaintiffs. The Court did not decide whether the order itself violates the Constitution. It ruled only on how far a court’s injunction can reach. Why It Matters to Employers The ruling affects how quickly and widely federal courts can stop controversial policies, especially during fast-changing political cycles. Employers have often relied on national injunctions to pause new mandates on wages, workplace safety, pay transparency, and non-compete agreements. This decision limits that option. The Court said nothing about injunctions under the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs agency rules. But the opinion raises doubts about whether even those can continue on a nationwide scale. Justice Kavanaugh suggested they might, but the Court left that question for another day. What This Means for You No nationwide protection unless you sue If your business is not part of the case, you likely cannot rely on someone else’s win. You must litigate directly to get relief. Rules may take effect in one state and not another A federal court in Texas may block a rule, while a court in New York upholds it. National companies may face conflicting rules and inconsistent enforcement. Trade groups cannot shield you Even if your industry association wins an injunction, it may apply only to their members or to the parties named in the lawsuit. Older rulings may now shrink Past national injunctions—on vaccine mandates, non-compete bans, overtime rules, or joint-employer standards—could be challenged or narrowed based on this ruling. More class actions are likely Some plaintiffs may now push for class certification to restore broader relief. Employers could face more complex litigation as a result. Next Steps for Employers Identify any current or past rules your business has relied on that are being blocked nationwide. Confirm whether you were covered by name or just assumed you were protected. Reassess your risk exposure for pending federal actions under OSHA, the EEOC, the DOL, or the NLRB. Monitor APA-based injunctions to see whether courts continue to grant broad relief under that statute. Consider joining strategic litigation early if new executive orders or agency rules would harm your operations. You cannot assume another company’s lawsuit will protect you. The Court narrowed that path. To block a federal mandate, you may now need to act alone—or join the fight directly. Michael P. Lewis is an attorney at The Royal Law Firm with experience advising clients through the litigation process. Michael helps employers resolve workplace challenges with focus, precision, and judgment. He counsels and defends businesses across Massachusetts and Connecticut, handling matters involving discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wage and hour claims, restrictive covenants, and breach of contract. His practice includes litigation in state and federal courts and before administrative agencies. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.