## Facts

- Michigan voters enacted the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), which immunizes registered qualifying patients from “arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner” for MMMA-compliant medical marijuana use.
- Federal law (the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)) classifies marijuana as a Schedule I substance and generally prohibits its manufacture, distribution, and possession.
- The City of Wyoming amended its zoning ordinance to prohibit land uses “contrary to federal law, state law or local ordinance,” making violations municipal civil infractions subject to civil sanctions and injunctive relief.
- John Ter Beek, a registered qualifying patient under the MMMA, wished to grow, possess, and use medical marijuana in his home in compliance with the MMMA.
- Ter Beek alleged the ordinance effectively prohibited and penalized MMMA-compliant conduct by incorporating the CSA’s federal prohibition.
- The circuit court granted summary disposition to the City, concluding the CSA preempted the MMMA.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding the CSA did not preempt the MMMA and that the MMMA preempted the ordinance.
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the CSA preempts MMMA § 4(a)’s state-law immunity for MMMA-compliant medical marijuana use.
2. Whether MMMA § 4(a) preempts a municipal zoning ordinance that prohibits land uses “contrary to federal law” and penalizes MMMA-compliant medical marijuana activity.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court held MMMA § 4(a) is not preempted by the CSA.
- The Court held the City’s ordinance directly conflicted with, and was preempted by, MMMA § 4(a) to the extent it prohibited or penalized MMMA-compliant conduct by qualifying patients.
- The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Federal preemption requires a clear basis; in traditional state police-power areas, courts presume Congress did not intend to displace state law absent a clear and manifest purpose.
- A state law that removes state penalties for certain conduct, without requiring anyone to violate federal law or blocking federal enforcement, does not necessarily create an impossibility conflict or an obstacle to federal objectives under the CSA.
- Under Michigan law, a municipal ordinance is preempted when it directly conflicts with a state statute, including when concurrent compliance is not possible.
- MMMA § 4(a)’s protection against “penalty in any manner” extends beyond criminal punishment to civil sanctions and injunctive measures imposed for MMMA-compliant medical marijuana use.
- A local ordinance that penalizes conduct the MMMA immunizes from penalties is in direct conflict with MMMA § 4(a) and is invalid to that extent.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that Michigan’s decision to immunize qualifying patients from state-law penalties for MMMA-compliant medical marijuana use is not displaced by the CSA, and that a city may not use zoning regulations incorporating federal marijuana prohibitions to impose civil penalties or injunctions against conduct MMMA § 4(a) shields from “penalty in any manner.”


Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 846 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. 2014)