Dallas Halts Enforcement of Voter‑Approved Cannabis Depenalization Charter

LOS ANGELES- Dallas city officials have suspended the enforcement of a charter amendment approved by 67 percent of voters in November, which decriminalized possession of up to four ounces of cannabis and prohibited arrests based solely on its odor. The pause follows a recent ruling by the 15th Court of Appeals in Austin that temporarily blocked a similar initiative in Austin, prompting Dallas to seek a joint temporary injunction with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office.

Attorney General Paxton’s January lawsuit argued that local measures cannot override state cannabis laws, asserting that municipalities may not selectively apply or limit enforcement of drug statutes. In April, the appellate court ruled local anti-enforcement policies conflicted with Section 370.003 of the Texas Local Government Code, which requires full enforcement of state drug laws, reinforcing that ordinances like Dallas’s may be preempted .

Republican-appointed Judge Dale Tillery initially rejected Paxton’s request in February, allowing enforcement to proceed pending full review. However, following the Austin ruling, Dallas and the state jointly sought a pause, acknowledging legal uncertainty until the Texas Supreme Court issues a decisive ruling.

Former Dallas County Assistant DA Russell Wilson commented that the city can legally defend its measure but must await appellate review before enforcing it. The Supreme Court may expedite the case, potentially issuing a ruling before the end of 2025 .

Dallas is among at least eight Texas cities—including Austin, San Marcos, Denton, Bastrop, Elgin, Killeen, and Lockhart—that passed similar cannabis depenalization measures. Some jurisdictions, such as Denton and Bastrop, subsequently declined to implement their voter-approved reforms amid legal pressure.

State law classifies possession of up to two ounces of cannabis as a misdemeanor punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a $2,000 fine. These developments highlight the ongoing legal conflict between local voter-driven cannabis reforms and state-level enforcement mandates.