In a case that’s already sending ripples through Washington DC’s legal and social circles, a 76-year-old woman has successfully sued her neighbor to stop him from smoking marijuana in his own home. The ruling, handed down by the DC Court of Appeals on October 20, 2025, could set a precedent for similar disputes not only in the nation’s capital but potentially across the United States, despite marijuana’s legal status in DC since 2015.
Josefa Ippolito-Shepherd, a longtime DC resident, spent five years locked in a legal battle with her 73-year-old neighbor, Thomas Cackett. Her complaint was simple but persistent: the smell of marijuana drifting from Cackett’s apartment was so pungent—likened to “feces” and “skunk”—that it made her dread coming home. According to The New York Post, Ippolito-Shepherd even recounted a time when the odor was so overwhelming she vomited after her neighbor lit up.
"I was not interested in money — I was interested in getting fresh air in my home," Ippolito-Shepherd told The Washington Post, capturing the heart of her grievance. For her, this was never about compensation—it was about reclaiming the comfort of her own living space. The dispute, which might have sounded trivial to some, soon became a test case for balancing personal freedoms with shared community standards in a city where marijuana is legal but close quarters are the norm.
Representing herself throughout the ordeal, Ippolito-Shepherd first won a victory in a lower court in 2023. Cackett, however, wasn’t ready to give up. He appealed, maintaining that his marijuana use was both limited and medically necessary. He told the court he smoked only once daily, for no more than five minutes, to manage a range of health conditions, including skin cancer, chronic hepatitis, arthritis, and sciatica. “I am not Snoop Dogg,” Cackett insisted, according to The Washington Post, hoping to paint a picture of moderation rather than excess.
But the appellate panel wasn’t convinced. The court found it “doubtful” that Cackett’s marijuana use was as limited as he claimed. More importantly, the judges determined that Ippolito-Shepherd’s “use and enjoyment of her own property” took priority over Cackett’s “use and enjoyment of his marijuana.” In a city where neighbors live cheek-by-jowl and apartment walls are often thin, that distinction proved decisive.
The ruling now bans Cackett from smoking marijuana within 25 feet of Ippolito-Shepherd’s home—even if that means he can’t do so anywhere on his own property. Any violation could result in civil or even criminal penalties, a detail that underscores the seriousness of the court’s decision. For Cackett, who had argued his marijuana use was essential for his health, the outcome is a bitter pill to swallow.
It’s worth noting that marijuana has been legal in Washington DC for a decade, ever since voters approved Initiative 71 in 2014, which came into effect the following year. The law allows adults to possess, grow, and consume marijuana in private. Yet, as this case demonstrates, legalization doesn’t always settle disputes about where and how marijuana can be enjoyed—especially when neighbors’ rights and comfort are at stake.
The case has already drawn attention from legal experts and residents alike, many of whom see it as a harbinger of future conflicts in densely populated urban areas. According to The New York Post, the decision could “set a new precedent locally and potentially across the US for annoyed neighbors.” That’s no small thing in a country where marijuana laws are evolving rapidly, and where the boundaries between private enjoyment and public nuisance are often blurred.
For some, the court’s decision is a welcome affirmation of property rights and the right to a peaceful home environment. After all, who wants to come home to a smell that makes them sick? For others, the ruling raises concerns about personal freedoms and the reach of the law into people’s private lives—especially when medical needs are involved. The case also highlights the challenges faced by older adults living in close proximity, where even minor annoyances can escalate into major legal battles.
What’s especially striking about this saga is the sheer perseverance shown by Ippolito-Shepherd. For five years, she represented herself in court, refusing to give up even when the process dragged on. Her victory, while personal, signals to others that it’s possible to fight back—even against behaviors that are technically legal—if those behaviors infringe on one’s basic quality of life.
On the flip side, Cackett’s defense—a plea for understanding based on health needs and restraint—reflects the other side of the legalization debate. Many medical marijuana users fear that rulings like this could make it harder for them to medicate at home, especially in multi-unit buildings or tightly packed neighborhoods. “I am not Snoop Dogg,” he said, emphasizing that he wasn’t seeking to disturb anyone, just manage his pain and illness in peace.
Legal analysts suggest that the case could prompt city officials and lawmakers to revisit regulations around marijuana use in residential settings. While DC law allows private consumption, it doesn’t necessarily protect users from nuisance complaints or lawsuits brought by neighbors. The court’s emphasis on the “use and enjoyment” of property over the legal right to consume marijuana may well inspire similar legal challenges elsewhere.
For now, the ruling stands as a reminder: even in places where marijuana is legal, social norms and personal comfort still matter. The case of Josefa Ippolito-Shepherd and Thomas Cackett isn’t just about weed—it’s about how we live together, respect each other’s boundaries, and find common ground in a changing world.
As the dust settles in this Washington DC neighborhood, residents across the city—and perhaps the country—are watching closely. Will more neighbors take legal action over secondhand smoke? Will lawmakers step in to clarify the rules? Only time will tell, but one thing’s certain: the conversation about marijuana, property rights, and neighborly relations is far from over.
For now, Josefa Ippolito-Shepherd can finally breathe a little easier in her own home, while Thomas Cackett faces a new reality—one where lighting up, even for a few minutes, could come at a steep cost.
