Jeffrey M. Jensen, PC represents clients in high-stakes constitutional and commercial litigation, challenging discriminatory laws and protecting the right to compete on a level playing field across the United States.
Jeff is licensed in California, New York, and the District of Columbia. He appears in other jurisdictions pro hac vice.
Communicating with the Firm does not create an attorney–client relationship. Do not submit confidential or sensitive information through this form or by email, as such communications may not be privileged unless and until an attorney-client relationship is formed.
Jeffrey Jensen has extensive experience litigating constitutional issues, including challenges to laws and regulations under the dormant Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. He has brought several cases against states and cities that discriminate against out-of-state applicants for cannabis business licenses. During a hearing before the District of Maryland in a dormant Commerce Clause challenge to a state cannabis licensing program, the judge remarked, “The reason I am peppering you is because you know more about this than anyone it seems, and that is great. That is why you are here.”
Jeff or his cases have been featured in The New York Times, Law360, The Daily Journal, The National Law Review, Crain’s New York Business, Cannabis Business Times, MJBizDaily, and other major publications. His cases have also been cited in multiple law review articles and other secondary sources.
Jeff has litigated questions of first impression in several federal courts. In the Ninth Circuit, Jeff successfully argued for a party’s right to bring constitutional challenges in federal court against state cannabis licensing laws, securing a unanimous reversal of an Eastern District of California order that created a new abstention doctrine.
In the Second Circuit, he successfully argued that the dormant Commerce Clause applies to state cannabis licensing laws, obtaining a reversal of a Northern District of California order that the dormant Commerce Clause does not apply because cannabis is federally illegal under the Controlled Substances Act.
In the First Circuit, Jeff successfully argued for a party’s right to challenge state enabling statutes before an agency promulgates regulations thereunder, obtaining a unanimous reversal of a District of Rhode Island order dismissing a case as unripe.
He has also brought constitutional cases in the Fourth Circuit and several district courts, often addressing complex issues of standing and constitutional injury.
Outside of constitutional law, Jeff handles complex commercial litigation in federal and state courts, with emphasis on breach of contract, business tort, and intellectual property cases. His clients have ranged from large corporations to small businesses and select individuals, including a multi-billionaire.
Jeff graduated first in his class from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. After law school, he clerked for both the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the United States District Court for the Central District of California. He worked for a large international law firm for five years.
Variscite NY Four, LLC v. New York State Cannabis Control Board, 152 F.4th 47 (2d Cir. 2025) – Obtained a reversal of a district court order and established that the dormant Commerce Clause applies to state cannabis licensing laws in the Second Circuit.
Peridot Tree, Inc. v. City of Sacramento, 94 F.4th 916 (9th Cir. 2024) – Secured a reversal of a district court abstention order and confirmed a party’s right to challenge cannabis licensing laws under the dormant Commerce Clause in the Ninth Circuit.
Jensen v. Rhode Island Cannabis Control Commission, — F.4th — (1st Cir. 2025) – Secured a reversal of a district court abstention order and confirmed a party’s right to challenge cannabis licensing laws under the dormant Commerce Clause in the Ninth Circuit.
Lanham Act – Served as post-judgment counsel to a defendant and achieved a $5.5 million reduction in the fee award against the client.
Variscite NY One, Inc. v. New York, 640 F. Supp. 3d 232 (N.D.N.Y. 2022) – The plaintiff obtained an injunction against the New York Office of Cannabis Management, and the case settled favorably to the plaintiff.
ARMLA One, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, No. 2:20-CV-07965-SB-RAO, 2021 WL 3126986 (C.D. Cal. May 20, 2021) – The case settled favorably to the plaintiff and resulted in changes to the Los Angeles Municipal Code.
Hemp. Hemp companies have begun challenging state restrictions on hemp companies under the dormant Commerce Clause. Because the 2018 Farm Bill legalizes hemp nationwide, the plaintiffs in these cases avoid the question of whether the dormant Commerce Clause applies to the market. Hemp companies have brought suits to challenge everything from in-state residency preferences for businesses to limits on THC, THCA, delta-8, and delta-9.
Unfair Competition Against Unlicensed Cannabis Businesses. California Business & Professions Code section 26038.1 (AB 1171) permits licensed cannabis businesses to bring civil lawsuits against unlicensed competitors.
