Relationship between the Michigan Regulation & Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA) & the Probation Act; Whether sentencing courts may prohibit MRTMA-compliant marijuana use as a probation condition; Preemption; Ter Beek v City of Wyoming; The federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA); The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA)

The court held that trial courts “may not prohibit MRTMA-compliant marijuana use as a probation condition solely because such use violates federal law.” Thus, it reversed the Court of Appeals judgment and remanded the case to the trial court to reconsider, consistent with the court’s “opinion, defendant’s motion to amend the terms of her probation, to vacate her first violation, and to dismiss her second violation.” The court concluded that the Court of Appeals incorrectly ruled “that prohibiting MRTMA-compliant marijuana use was a mandatory condition of probation.” The court found that its reasoning in Ter Beek as “to the MMMA applies equally to the MRTMA. As a result, the CSA cannot preempt the MRTMA.” It noted that it held in Ter Beek “that the CSA does not preempt § 4(a) of the MMMA.” That case was relevant here because “the MMMA and the MRTMA concern similar subject matter, and because § 5(1) of the MRTMA is very similar to § 4(a) of the MMMA.” Thus, the court applied the Ter Beek preemption test to the CSA and the MRTMA. And it held “that ‘there is no “positive conflict” between the CSA and’ § 5(1) of the MRTMA ‘such that the two “cannot consistently stand together[.]”’” As a result, the CSA “does not preempt § 5(1) of the MRTMA.” The court further held that the Probation Act conflicts with the MRTMA, which “provides that all state laws ‘inconsistent with this act do not apply to conduct that is permitted by this act.’” The court found that the Probation Act “is inconsistent with the MRTMA insofar as it automatically bars probationers from MRTMA-compliant marijuana use based on the CSA.” Thus, the MRTMA controlled. The court noted that whether a trial “court can restrict a probationer’s marijuana use as a discretionary, individually tailored probation condition is a question” it did not decide here because the Court of Appeals never reached that issue.