## Facts

- Montana voters approved a medical-marijuana initiative in 2004.
- In 2011, the Legislature repealed the earlier framework and enacted a new medical-marijuana regulatory scheme.
- The 2011 Act limited each registered provider to serving no more than three registered cardholders.
- The 2011 Act also prohibited a provider from accepting “anything of value” for providing marijuana or related services.
- Medical-marijuana providers, patients, and a physician challenged multiple provisions, alleging violations of substantive due process and equal protection under the Montana Constitution.
- The district court permanently enjoined enforcement of the three-patient cap and the compensation ban but upheld other challenged provisions.
- The State appealed the injunctions; plaintiffs cross-appealed the refusal to enjoin additional provisions.

## Issues

1. Whether limiting a provider to three registered cardholders violates substantive due process under the Montana Constitution under rational-basis review.
2. Whether prohibiting providers from accepting anything of value for providing medical marijuana or related services violates substantive due process under rational-basis review.
3. Whether other restrictions in the 2011 Act violate equal protection or due process under rational-basis review.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court upheld the three-patient limit as rationally related to the State’s legitimate interest in preventing a large-scale commercial medical-marijuana industry and associated abuses; the injunction against that provision was reversed.
- The court held the no-remuneration rule unconstitutional under substantive due process because the blanket ban on receiving anything of value lacked a rational relationship to the asserted legislative objective; the injunction against that provision was affirmed.
- The court largely rejected plaintiffs’ remaining constitutional challenges and left most other provisions in force.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Montana Constitution, social and economic legislation is generally reviewed under rational-basis scrutiny unless it implicates a fundamental right or suspect classification.
- A statute satisfies substantive due process and equal protection under rational-basis review if it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest; the State need not select the least restrictive or best policy option.
- The Legislature may substantially restrict participation in a state-authorized medical-marijuana scheme to deter diversion, abuse, and commercial-scale activity.
- Even under rational-basis review, a provision may fail if its means are irrational in light of the statute’s stated objectives, including when internal inconsistencies undermine the asserted justification.

## Conclusion

The court sustained Montana’s authority to tightly limit medical-marijuana provision by upholding a three-patient cap, but it invalidated a categorical ban on provider compensation as lacking a rational connection to the Legislature’s goals, leaving the remainder of the 2011 regulatory scheme largely intact.


Mont. Cannabis Indus. Ass'n v. State, 2016 MT 44, 382 Mont. 256, 368 P.3d 1131 (2016)