Minnesota House Bill HF1310

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/20/25
• Refer: 2/20/25

Caption

Office of Cannabis Management included as an agency for the purpose of having a government-to-government relationship with Tribal governments.

Summary

HF1310 amends Minnesota’s government-to-government consultation law to expressly include the Office of Cannabis Management in the list of state agencies covered by the statute. The bill does not create a new consultation framework; instead, it places the cannabis office within an existing set of agencies that must engage in direct, interactive consultation with Minnesota Tribal governments on matters with Tribal implications. The bill also restates and preserves the statutory definitions governing consultation, including what counts as an agency, what constitutes consultation, what qualifies as a matter with Tribal implications, and which entities are recognized as Minnesota Tribal governments. In practical terms, the measure clarifies that cannabis-related policy, rules, or other actions by the Office of Cannabis Management are subject to the same tribal consultation expectations that already apply to other state agencies.

Impact

This bill would amend Minnesota Statutes section 10.65, subdivision 2, by adding the Office of Cannabis Management to the statutory definition of “agency” for purposes of tribal consultation. As a result, the office would be required to participate in government-to-government consultation with Minnesota Tribal governments when taking actions with Tribal implications, including policy development, rulemaking, or other decisions that may directly affect tribal governments or state-tribal relations. The bill affects the Office of Cannabis Management and Minnesota Tribal governments, but it does not otherwise alter the broader consultation standards or create new substantive cannabis regulations.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears straightforward and administrative in nature, with no recorded committee debate or votes indicating opposition. The overall sentiment is likely neutral to supportive, since the bill simply extends an existing consultation requirement to a newly created or newly relevant state office. The absence of recorded controversy suggests the proposal is intended as a technical alignment of state law with the Office of Cannabis Management’s responsibilities.

Contention

No specific points of contention are reflected in the available transcripts or voting history. The main issue the bill addresses is whether the Office of Cannabis Management should be explicitly subject to Minnesota’s tribal consultation statute, and the bill answers that question affirmatively. If any concern were to arise, it would likely center on the scope of tribal consultation obligations for cannabis policy and how those obligations are implemented in practice, but no such dispute is documented in the provided materials.