In September 2022, the Jersey City Police Department (JCPD) randomly drug-tested officers Norhan Mansour and Omar Polanco. Both tested positive for cannabinoids. Both admitted they had used cannabis off-duty but insisted that they had only purchased regulated, legal product from New Jersey dispensaries. Mansour produced receipts; Polanco did not. The JCPD fired them both. The JCPD’s internal order, issued in April 2022, prohibited officers from using cannabis on- or off-duty because, as the order put it, it is illegal under federal law for cannabis users to possess, carry, or use firearms.
Mansour and Polanco appealed.
The Civil Service Commission reversed their removals, holding that New Jersey’s Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA) expressly prohibits employers from taking adverse action against an employee solely due to the presence of cannabinoid metabolites in bodily fluid from conduct permitted under the act. N.J.S.A. 24:6I-52(a)(1). The JCPD had not alleged that either officer used cannabis on duty, appeared impaired, or used unregulated product.
The JCPD then moved for reconsideration and a stay, arguing that the federal Gun Control Act (GCA) preempts CREAMMA. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3) and (g)(3), it is unlawful for any person who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess or receive any firearm or ammunition. Cannabis remains a controlled substance under federal law. The JCPD claimed it could not comply with both CREAMMA’s prohibition on adverse employment actions and the GCA’s mandate that known drug users not carry guns. The Commission denied reconsideration, and the JCPD appealed to the Appellate Division.
The Appellate Division affirmed, centering its analysis on 18 U.S.C. § 925(a)(1) — a carve-out the JCPD had overlooked. That provision states that most of the GCA’s restrictions “shall not apply with respect to the transportation, shipment, receipt, possession, or importation of any firearm or ammunition imported for, sold or shipped to, or issued for the use of any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof.” When firearms or ammunition are issued for use by a police department, the restrictions under § 922 do not apply.
The JCPD tried to sidestep the carve-out. It argued that because the department requires officers to purchase their own firearms rather than issuing them department-owned weapons, and because the department does not provide officers with the certifications needed to place their firearms beyond the GCA’s scope, the exemption did not apply. The Court was unpersuaded. The Commission had argued during oral argument that the JCPD was an “outlier” with this purchasing policy, and the Court saw no reason to allow the department to create a self-inflicted conflict and then use that conflict to preempt state law. The plain terms of § 925(a)(1) remove firearms used for state purposes from the limitations of § 922, regardless of who writes the purchase check. The Court cited Hyland v. Fukuda, 580 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1978), for the proposition that the exemption applies to firearms “owned by the state and used exclusively for its purposes,” and Keyes v. Sessions, 282 F. Supp. 3d 858, 866 (M.D. Pa. 2017), for the observation that a state trooper could possess firearms as part of his official duties but not in his personal capacity under federal law.
The JCPD also raised impossibility preemption — the idea that compliance with both federal and state law is impossible. The Court rejected this. Because § 925(a)(1) exempts government-issued firearms from the GCA’s prohibitions, the JCPD can comply with both laws; it can refrain from firing officers for off-duty regulated cannabis use under CREAMMA while also ensuring that those officers carry firearms in their official capacity without violating the GCA. The Court noted that Congress expressly disclaimed any intent to occupy the field of firearms regulation in § 927 of the GCA, which provides that no provision of the chapter shall be construed as indicating intent to preempt state law unless there is a “direct and positive conflict” where the two “cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.” No such conflict existed.
The JCPD had not alleged that either officer used unregulated cannabis, used cannabis on duty, or was ever impaired while working. Both officers were fired solely for the presence of cannabinoid metabolites in their systems from off-duty use of state-legal, regulated product. That, the Court held, is exactly what CREAMMA prohibits. The Commission’s decisions reinstating Mansour and Polanco with mitigated back pay, benefits, seniority, and reasonable counsel fees were affirmed.
In re Mansour, 2026 WL 1194743 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 1, 2026).
This article appears in the July 2026 issue of our monthly newsletter, Public Safety Labor News.
Also in the July 2026 issue:
- Maryland Court Rejects Terminated Police Officer’s Claim That County Promised Him A Trial Board
- Employer May Not Delay Reinstatement Indefinitely Under Guise Of “Practicality”
- “All About Race”: Federal Court Restores Promotion Bias Suit After Supreme Court Ruling
- Job Vacancy Posting Alone Does Not Transfer Bargaining Unit Work
- Religious Discrimination Suit Cannot Survive Five COVID Vaccine-Related Accommodations Offered By Employer
- Successor Union Steps Into Shoes Of Decertified Union For Grievance Arbitration Under Expired CBA
- One DEI Training Session Does Not A Hostile Environment Make
- Pennsylvania County Cleared To Implement Open Container Ban
- No Privacy While Policing — Texas Officer’s Recording Claim Fails