May 26, 2026

By: Ty Hyderally, Esq., Francine Foner, Esq., Aleisha Andino

The New Jersey Appellate Division has delivered a clear message to employers: firing a police officer for legal, off-duty cannabis use violates the law — and courts will not allow it.

In a consolidated decision involving Jersey City Police Officers Norhan Mansour and Omar Polanco, the Appellate Division ruled that the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA) protects law enforcement employees from termination based solely on lawful, off-duty cannabis use — even in the face of the federal Gun Control Act (GCA). In re Mansour, Jersey City Police Dep’t, Docket Nos. A-3876-23, A-3886-23 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 1, 2026) (unpublished).

CREAMMA expressly prohibits New Jersey employers from taking adverse action against employees solely because they use cannabis legally and off duty, or because they test positive for cannabinoid metabolites resulting from such use. Id. at 5. On the other hand, the Gun Control Act (GCA), prohibits firearm possession by anyone who is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance, including cannabis. Id. at 12.

What Happened

In September 2022, the Jersey City Police Department (JCPD) randomly drug-tested Officers Mansour and Polanco. Both tested positive for cannabis. Both officers confirmed they had used cannabis off duty — lawfully, after New Jersey legalized it. Neither officer was accused of using cannabis on the job, showing up to work impaired, or consuming unregulated products.

None of that mattered to the JCPD. The department suspended and then fired both officers, claiming their cannabis use made it impossible for them to carry a firearm — a required job function — without violating federal law. The JCPD argued that the GCA, which prohibits firearm possession by “unlawful users” of controlled substances, directly conflicted with CREAMMA’s employment protections, and that federal law had to win.

JCPD maintained that this conflict required the state law to yield under the doctrine of federal preemption. Id. at 2, 9. However, “in the GCA, Congress distinguished between firearms and ammunition issued for private and government use.” Id. at 13. If used by the government, most of the GCA’s provisions are removed. Id.

Following the department hearings, in March 2023, the matters were transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law and “heard on cross-motions for summary decision before different Administrative Law Judges (ALJs).” Id. at 4. Both ALJs in the Mansour and Polanco matters agreed that the police officers’ termination violated CREAMMA because the JCPD did not allege they used cannabis or were impaired while on duty. Id. at 5-7. JCPD challenged the ALJs’ conclusions and following de novo reviews of the record, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) adopted the ALJ’s legal conclusions and reinstated Mansour and Polaco. Id. at 7-8.

The JCPD still disagreed, which prompted them to raise the same legal challenge to the CSC decision in both matters. The Appellate court rejected the JCPD’s preemption argument. Id. at 14. It began by noting that federal preemption occurs in three circumstances: when Congress expressly preempts state law, when federal law occupies a field exclusively, or when there is a direct conflict making compliance with both laws impossible. Id. at 11-12.

Here, the court found no such direct conflict. Id. at 14. While the GCA does prohibit firearm possession by cannabis users, it also contains an important exemption: its restrictions do not apply to firearms or ammunition “issued for the use of.  .  .  any State or political subdivision thereof.” Id. at 13. This means that, for law enforcement officers using firearms in their official capacity, the federal prohibition does not apply.

The Appellate Division further observed that CREAMMA does not require anyone to violate federal law; it simply provides immunity from state prosecution and adverse employment actions for legal, off-duty cannabis use. Id. at 6. The federal government remains free to enforce its own laws, but state agencies are not required to do so on its behalf. Id.

Because the officers’ cannabis use was legal under state law, occurred off duty, and did not involve unregulated products or on-duty impairment, the Appellate Division held that their terminations violated CREAMMA. The Appellate Division therefore affirmed the Civil Service Commission’s orders to reinstate the officers, with back pay and benefits. Id. at 14-15.

The Mansour and Polanco decision marks a significant development in the intersection of cannabis legalization and employment law. As cannabis laws continue to evolve, both employers and employees should stay informed about their rights and obligations under state and federal law.

If you feel that you are the target of discrimination, harassment, whistleblower retaliation, or some other issue in the workplace, or if you have any questions regarding your rights as an employee, you should seek out an experienced attorney who concentrates in employment law. Our firm has been concentrating in employment law for over twenty-three (23) years!

En nuestra firma hablamos español. This blog is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and may not reasonably be relied upon as such. If you face a legal issue, you should consult a qualified attorney for independent legal advice regarding your particular set of facts. This blog may constitute attorney advertising. This blog is not intended to communicate with anyone in a state or other jurisdiction where such a blog may fail to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state or jurisdiction.