The two-year ban on a Cambridge medical pot shop selling to all adults has gone up in smoke.

A Middlesex Superior Court judge ruled Friday that the city’s two-year moratorium on Revolutionary Clinics opening a retail pot shop “violates the Home Rule Amendment” to the Massachusetts Constitution and state cannabis law.

Revolutionary Clinics praised the ruling, saying it will now allow the company, and others, “to move quickly” to open adult-use pot shops in Cambridge.

The Cambridge City Council last fall approved a two-year moratorium during which only “economic empowerment candidates” as designated by the Cannabis Control Commission can operate retail pot shops in the city. The empowerment program was designed to help businesses in communities disproportionately and negatively affected by the prior criminalization of weed.

Superior Court Associate Justice Kathleen M. McCarthy stated that lifting the ban “promotes the public interest” by “invalidating conflicting local ordinances.”

Revolutionary Clinics filed a lawsuit, by Boston law firm Saul, Ewing, Arnstein and Lehr, in Middlesex Superior Court this past fall seeking to prevent the city from enforcing the ordinance, which it calls “unlawful” because “it authorizes Cambridge and its city officials to determine who may operate cannabis businesses in Cambridge.”

The company added Friday the Cambridge freeze was in “direct conflict” with Massachusetts law.

“The decision (Friday) determined that the injunction in favor of Revolutionary Clinics ‘promotes the public interest’ and validates its significant investments in protecting patient access to safe, regulated, high-quality products in Cambridge,” a company statement added.

The Cambridge mayor’s office did not return calls for comment.

Revolutionary Clinics claimed in October that it would cost the company $700,000 a month in lost profits by not being allowed to sell recreational weed in the city. The company has medical pot shops in Cambridge and Somerville and plans to open another store in Cambridge this year.

The lawsuit also claimed that, “Not only does Cambridge’s adoption of the Two-Year Moratorium offend the will of Cambridge Voters” — about 71% of whom voted in favor of legalizing weed — “it was brazenly enacted in the face of warnings by the drafters of the cannabis laws that it would be illegal.”