Michigan Supreme Court restores wage and sick leave laws

Michigan Supreme Court restores wage and sick leave laws

Citizen-initiated proposals aimed at increasing the minimum wage and expanding paid sick leave

In a significant ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court has reinstated the original minimum wage and paid sick leave laws that were initially gutted by the legislature in 2018. This decision reverses the amendments made by the legislature, which had adopted and then quickly weakened the voter-initiated proposals, effectively bypassing the intent of the voters.

Background

In 2018, two citizen-initiated proposals aimed at increasing the minimum wage and expanding paid sick leave were presented.

The Michigan Legislature adopted these initiatives to prevent them from going to a public vote, then promptly amended them to make them more business-friendly. This “adopt and amend” strategy reduced the scope and impact of the original proposals.

For example, the minimum wage was set to increase more gradually, and the paid sick leave law was adjusted to exempt more businesses from providing benefits.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

The Court’s Ruling

The Michigan Court of Claims, with Judge Douglas Shapiro presiding, ruled that this legislative maneuver violated the state constitution. Shapiro’s opinion emphasized that once the legislature adopts an initiative, it cannot amend it within the same session.

This decision reinstates the original 2018 proposals, which include raising the minimum wage to $12 per hour and extending paid sick leave benefits to many more employees than the amended laws allowed.

The court found that the legislature’s actions undermined the will of the people, who had supported the more generous terms of the original initiatives. The ruling also highlighted the constitutional principle that initiatives should be protected from legislative tampering once they are adopted.

Implications for Workers and Employers

The restoration of these laws is a major victory for worker rights groups and unions, who argue that the higher minimum wage and expanded sick leave are essential for providing fair compensation and benefits to workers.

For instance, the reinstated minimum wage law also includes provisions to eliminate the lower tipped wage by 2024, ensuring all workers receive at least $12 per hour.

The paid sick leave law now requires businesses, including those with fewer than 50 employees, to offer up to 72 hours of paid sick leave annually.

This decision is seen as a move towards economic justice, addressing issues of wage inequality and providing greater job security and benefits for low-income workers. Supporters argue that these changes are necessary to meet the rising cost of living and provide a fair wage for all workers.

Business Community’s Response

The business community, however, has expressed significant concerns about the impact of these changes. Many business leaders argue that the restored laws will place a substantial financial burden on employers, particularly small businesses already struggling with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing economic challenges. They warn that the increased labor costs could lead to higher prices for consumers, reduced hiring, and even closures of small businesses.

The Michigan Restaurant & Lodging Association, for example, fears that the immediate implementation of these laws could create chaos in the hospitality industry, which is heavily reliant on the lower tipped wage model. Business groups are calling for a delay in implementing the changes to allow time for adjustment and are expected to appeal the ruling.

Next Steps

The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision marks a pivotal moment in the state’s labor policy, reaffirming the constitutional protections for voter-initiated laws. While the ruling is a clear win for worker advocates, the legal and political battles are likely to continue as business groups push back and seek ways to mitigate the impact on employers.

The state’s regulatory bodies, including the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, are now tasked with ensuring compliance with the restored laws. They will play a crucial role in determining how these laws are implemented and enforced, potentially shaping the future landscape of labor rights in Michigan.

This ruling underscores the ongoing tension between protecting worker rights and addressing the concerns of the business community, highlighting the complexities of labor law and economic policy in Michigan.

Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision to restore the original minimum wage and paid sick leave laws represents a significant shift in the state’s labor policy, aimed at providing greater protections and benefits for workers.

While celebrated by worker rights groups, the ruling poses challenges for businesses, setting the stage for further legal and political debates.

As the state moves forward with implementing these changes, the balance between fair labor practices and economic viability will remain a central issue.

Legal Counsel and Your Rights

When facing legal challenges, particularly in criminal cases, it is advisable to seek legal counsel immediately.

An experienced attorney can provide guidance on how to navigate interactions with law enforcement while safeguarding your constitutional rights.

Since 1993 our expert legal defense in navigating criminal law matters and protecting your constitutional rights are what we eat for breakfast everyday.

Contact Komorn Law PLLC if you’re ready to fight and win.

Research us and then call us.

More Rights You Should Know

Free Speech, Terror and Michigan Law

Free Speech, Terror and Michigan Law

Michigan Supreme Court Vacates Court of Appeals Ruling, Temporarily Preserves State Anti-Terror StatuteIf you are charged with a crime you're part of the State of Michigan family now. Call us - Because you don't want to be a part of that family. Komorn Law (248)...

read more
4th Circuit says – Assault weapons can be banned

4th Circuit says – Assault weapons can be banned

This case is about whether the Act’s general prohibition on the sale and possession of certain “assault weapons,” are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. An en banc federal appeals court upheld Maryland’s ban on assault-style weapons in a 10-5 decision...

read more

Other Articles

23andMe filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and your data is?

23andMe filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and your data is?

As of Friday 3/28/25, the firm’s shares were worth less than a dollar.If you are charged with a crime you're part of the State of Michigan family now. Call us - Because you don't want to be a part of that family. Komorn Law (248) 357-2550Genetic testing service...

read more
Free Speech, Terror and Michigan Law

Free Speech, Terror and Michigan Law

Michigan Supreme Court Vacates Court of Appeals Ruling, Temporarily Preserves State Anti-Terror StatuteIf you are charged with a crime you're part of the State of Michigan family now. Call us - Because you don't want to be a part of that family. Komorn Law (248)...

read more
Domestic Violence Conviction Prohibits Gun Ownership

Domestic Violence Conviction Prohibits Gun Ownership

No Second Amendment Rights For YouIf you are charged with a crime you're part of the State of Michigan family now. Call us - Because you don't want to be a part of that family. Komorn Law (248) 357-2550A federal judge in Michigan has ruled that a man with a prior...

read more
What Are Your Rights Before And After Arrest?

What Are Your Rights Before And After Arrest?

What are your rights before and after arrest?Generally, police require a search warrant to lawfully enter any private premises or to search electronic devices such as your phone or computer. If the police do not possess a search warrant, you are under no obligation to...

read more
Michigan Probationers Allowed Medical Marijuana

Michigan Probationers Allowed Medical Marijuana

Yea. We did that...What it is supposed to beOn February 11, 2021, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that judges cannot prohibit individuals on probation from using medical marijuana if they are registered patients under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA)....

read more

Michigan Supreme Court – Forfeiture of 2006 Saturn ION

Michigan Supreme Court – Forfeiture of 2006 Saturn ION

Michigan Supreme Court Ruling – July 25, 2025

The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that Detroit police can no longer seize cars through civil asset forfeiture unless they can demonstrate that the vehicle was used for drug trafficking.

The court ruled that Stephanie Wilson’s 2006 Saturn Ion was not subject to forfeiture laws as there was no evidence of drug-related activities when seized in 2019. Mere proximity to suspected drug crimes or passenger drug possession is not sufficient for seizure.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Michigan Supreme Court: Factual and Procedural History

On June 24, 2019, claimant Stephanie Wilson was driving in the defendant vehicle with Malcolm Smith in the passenger seat when she was pulled over by Sergeant Chivas Rivers of the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office. Sergeant Rivers testified at his deposition that he had been surveilling a house on Lumley Street in Detroit for narcotics activity when he saw claimant and Smith drive up and park in front of that house. An unidentified man approached the passenger side of the defendant vehicle and reached his arm in through the window for what Sergeant Rivers believed to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction.

After claimant drove away, Sergeant Rivers followed the defendant vehicle a short distance before effectuating a traffic stop on the basis of a failure to signal a turn. Sergeant Rivers
testified that, when he pulled claimant over, she stated that she had driven Smith to the Lumley Street address to purchase drugs. Claimant has denied saying this.

After speaking to claimant and Smith, Sergeant Rivers searched the defendant vehicle and found five empty syringes under the passenger seat but no other evidence of drugs. Although Sergeant Rivers averred that Smith stated that he had already used the syringes to inject heroin, it appears that the syringes were never tested for drug residue. Sergeant Rivers seized the
defendant vehicle. Nearly four months later, the state initiated forfeiture proceedings pursuant to MCL 333.7521.

Following discovery, claimant moved for summary disposition on three bases:

(1) MCR 2.116(C)(7) (plaintiff failed to promptly file its complaint for forfeiture);

(2) MCR 2.116(C)(8) (plaintiff failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted); and

(3) MCR 2.116(C)(10) (there was no material factual dispute, and claimant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law).

The trial court held a hearing and considered arguments from both parties regarding the facts surrounding the seizure of the defendant vehicle.

Finding that Sergeant Rivers appeared to have witnessed a hand-to-hand transaction but that such an interaction would not necessarily involve drugs, the trial court granted summary disposition to claimant without explicitly specifying the ground on which the ruling was based.

Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, a motion to stay, and an ex parte motion for relief from judgment.

The trial court denied these motions and directed plaintiff to release claimant’s vehicle immediately.

Read the Entire Opinion Here

Legal Counsel and Your Rights

When facing legal challenges, particularly in criminal cases, it is advisable to seek legal counsel immediately.

An experienced attorney can provide guidance on how to navigate interactions with law enforcement while safeguarding your constitutional rights.

Since 1993 our expert legal defense in navigating criminal law matters and protecting your constitutional rights are what we eat for breakfast everyday.

Contact Komorn Law PLLC if you’re ready to fight and win.

Research us and then call us.

More Rights You Should Know

A secured and safe vote thanks to new laws in Michigan

A secured and safe vote thanks to new laws in Michigan

Governor Whitmer Signs Historic Election Bills Package to Ensure Every Vote Can be Cast and CountedIn Case You Missed It November 30, 2023 “Today, we are expanding voting rights and strengthening our democracy,” said Governor Whitmer. “Michiganders spoke clearly last...

read more
4th Circuit says – Assault weapons can be banned

4th Circuit says – Assault weapons can be banned

This case is about whether the Act’s general prohibition on the sale and possession of certain “assault weapons,” are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. An en banc federal appeals court upheld Maryland’s ban on assault-style weapons in a 10-5 decision...

read more

Other Articles

Michigan Supreme Court won’t revive Flint water charges

Michigan Supreme Court won’t revive Flint water charges

The Michigan Supreme Court Wednesday shot down the state attorney general’s high-profile effort to criminally prosecute seven former public officials for their role in the Flint water crisis. In a series of orders, the court left in place lower court dismissals of the...

read more
Michigan Supreme Court Gives OK to Phones in Courts

Michigan Supreme Court Gives OK to Phones in Courts

The Michigan Supreme Court says the public can bring laptops, tablets and phones into local courthouses.The public can now bring cell phone, tablets and laptops into Michigan courthouses under a groundbreaking policy announced Wednesday by the state Supreme Court. The...

read more

Michigan Supreme Court restores wage and sick leave laws

Michigan Supreme Court won’t revive Flint water charges

The Michigan Supreme Court Wednesday shot down the state attorney general’s high-profile effort to criminally prosecute seven former public officials for their role in the Flint water crisis.

In a series of orders, the court left in place lower court dismissals of the charges, which were thrown out after an earlier Supreme Court ruling found that a prosecution team appointed by Attorney General Dana Nessel had improperly relied on a one-person grand jury to bring charges in 2021.

Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy, appointed by Nessel as co-lead of the state’s prosecution team along with Solicitor General Fadwa Hammoud, had used the unusual tactic, in which prosecutors presented evidence in secret to a single judge to secure charges against multiple former public officials.

Flint Water Crisis Summary

The Flint Water Crisis was a public health crisis that started in 2014 after the drinking water for the city of Flint, Michigan was contaminated with lead and possibly Legionella bacteria. In April 2014, during a financial crisis, state-appointed emergency manager Darnell Earley changed Flint’s water source from the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (sourced from Lake Huron and the Detroit River) to the Flint River. Residents complained about the taste, smell, and appearance of the water, and many raised concerns about its safety.

However, state and local officials repeatedly assured residents that the water was safe to drink. It was not until 2015, after months of protests and pressure from activists and public health experts, that the state finally admitted that the water was contaminated with lead.

The Flint Water Crisis had a devastating impact on the city’s residents, particularly children. Lead poisoning is especially harmful to children, and can cause a range of health problems, including learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and reduced IQ. An estimated 6,000 to 12,000 children were exposed to lead-contaminated water during the crisis.

The Flint Water Crisis is a story of government negligence and environmental injustice. The city’s decision to switch to the Flint River was made in an effort to save money, but it came at a great cost to the city’s residents. The crisis also exposed the deep racial and economic inequality in Flint, as the city’s predominantly Black and low-income residents were disproportionately affected by the contamination.

Flint Water Crisis FAQs

What caused the Flint Water Crisis?

The Flint Water Crisis was caused by a combination of factors, including:

  • The city’s decision to switch to the Flint River as its water source. The Flint River is more corrosive than the Detroit water system, and this caused the city’s lead pipes to corrode and leach lead into the water.
  • The state’s failure to properly treat the Flint River water. The Flint River water is more acidic than the Detroit water system, and this required the state to add corrosion inhibitors to the water to prevent lead from leaching into the pipes. However, the state failed to add enough corrosion inhibitors, which allowed the lead to leach into the water.
  • The state’s failure to listen to residents’ concerns about the water quality. Residents complained about the taste, smell, and appearance of the water from the beginning, but the state repeatedly assured them that the water was safe to drink.

Who was affected by the Flint Water Crisis?

The Flint Water Crisis affected all residents of Flint, but it was particularly harmful to children. Lead poisoning is especially harmful to children, and can cause a range of health problems, including learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and reduced IQ. An estimated 6,000 to 12,000 children were exposed to lead-contaminated water during the crisis.

  • What has been done to address the Flint Water Crisis?
  • The state has taken a number of steps to address the Flint Water Crisis, including:
  • Switching Flint back to the Detroit water system.
  • Replacing lead pipes in Flint homes.
  • Providing bottled water and water filters to residents.
  • Providing medical care and educational support to children who were exposed to lead-contaminated water.

More Posts

Free Speech, Terror and Michigan Law

Free Speech, Terror and Michigan Law

Michigan Supreme Court Vacates Court of Appeals Ruling, Temporarily Preserves State Anti-Terror StatuteIf you are charged with a crime you're part of the State of Michigan family now. Call us - Because you don't want to be a part of that family. Komorn Law (248)...

read more
Domestic Violence Conviction Prohibits Gun Ownership

Domestic Violence Conviction Prohibits Gun Ownership

No Second Amendment Rights For YouIf you are charged with a crime you're part of the State of Michigan family now. Call us - Because you don't want to be a part of that family. Komorn Law (248) 357-2550A federal judge in Michigan has ruled that a man with a prior...

read more
What Are Your Rights Before And After Arrest?

What Are Your Rights Before And After Arrest?

What are your rights before and after arrest?Generally, police require a search warrant to lawfully enter any private premises or to search electronic devices such as your phone or computer. If the police do not possess a search warrant, you are under no obligation to...

read more
Michigan Probationers Allowed Medical Marijuana

Michigan Probationers Allowed Medical Marijuana

Yea. We did that...What it is supposed to beOn February 11, 2021, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that judges cannot prohibit individuals on probation from using medical marijuana if they are registered patients under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA)....

read more
New Michigan Laws Going Into Effect 2025

New Michigan Laws Going Into Effect 2025

Making laws as fast as possible. Look over here...Not over there.Some of Michigan's new laws in 2025 include minimum wage increases, paid sick time, and automatic voter registration. Minimum wage The minimum wage in Michigan increased to $10.56 per hour on January 1,...

read more

Michigan Supreme Court Opinion regarding MMMA caregivers and local ordinances

Michigan Supreme Court Opinion regarding MMMA caregivers and local ordinances

DeRUITER v TOWNSHIP OF BYRON

  • Chief Justice: Bridget M. McCormack
  • Chief Justice Pro Tem: David F. Viviano
  • Justices: Stephen J. Markman, Brian K. Zahra, Richard H. Bernstein, Elizabeth T. Clement, Megan K. Cavanagh
  • Reporter of Decisions: Kathryn L. Loomis

Docket No. 158311. Argued on application for leave to appeal October 3, 2019. Decided April 27, 2020.

Syllabus

Christie DeRuiter, a registered qualifying medical marijuana patient and a registered primary caregiver to qualifying patients, brought an action in the Kent Circuit Court against Byron Township, alleging that the township’s zoning ordinance which required that a primary caregiver obtain a permit before cultivating medical marijuana and that the caregiver cultivate the marijuana within a dwelling or garage in a residentially zoned area within the township as part of a regulated home occupation at a full-time residence directly conflicted with – and – was therefore preempted by the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (the MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq.

DeRuiter cultivated marijuana in an enclosed, locked facility at a commercially zoned property she rented in the township; she did not obtain a permit from the township before cultivating the medical marijuana as a primary caregiver.

At the township’s direction, DeRuiter’s landlord ordered her to stop cultivating medical marijuana at the property or face legal action.

When the township attempted to enforce its zoning ordinance, DeRuiter filed the instant action, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the ordinance’s legality; the township countersued, seeking a declaration that the ordinance did not conflict with the MMMA.

Both parties moved for summary disposition, and the court, Paul J. Sullivan, J., granted summary disposition in favor of DeRuiter, holding that the ordinance directly conflicted with the MMMA and that it was therefore preempted by the act.

The Court of Appeals, HOEKSTRA, P.J., and MURPHY and MARKEY, JJ., affirmed the trial court order, concluding that the MMMA preempted defendant’s home-occupation zoning ordinance because the ordinance directly conflicted with the MMMA by prohibiting what the MMMA permitted and because the ordinance improperly imposed regulations and penalties upon persons who engage in the MMMA-compliant medical use of marijuana. 325 Mich App 275 (2018).

Byron Township applied for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, which ordered and heard oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. 503 Mich 942 (2019).

In a unanimous opinion by Justice BERNSTEIN, the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, held:

Under the conflict-preemption doctrine, the MMMA DOES NOT nullify a municipality’s inherent authority to regulate land use under the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MZEA), MCL 125.3101 et seq., as long as

(1) the municipality does not prohibit or penalize the cultivation of medical marijuana and (2) the municipality does not impose regulations that are unreasonable inconsistent with regulations established by state law.

MCL 333.26424(b)(2) states that primary caregivers and qualifying patients must keep their plants in an enclosed, locked facility in order for those individuals to be entitled to the MMMA protections in MCL 333.26424(a) and (b).

Because an enclosed, locked facility may be found in various locations on various types of property, the township’s ordinance limiting where medical marijuana must be cultivated within the locality did not directly conflict with the MMMA’s requirement that marijuana plants be kept in an enclosed, locked facility.

The township’s ordinance requiring primary caregivers to obtain a permit and pay a fee before using a building or structure within the township to cultivate medical marijuana also did not directly conflict with the MMMA because the ordinance did not effectively prohibit the medical use of marijuana.  

  1. Generally, local governments may control and regulate matters of local concern when that power is conferred by the state.

However, state law may preempt a local regulation either expressly or by implication. Implied preemption can occur when the state has occupied the entire field of regulation in a certain area (field preemption) or when a local regulation directly conflicts with state law (conflict preemption).

A direct conflict exists when the ordinance permits what the statute prohibits or the ordinance prohibits what the statute permits; there is no conflict between state and local law when a locality enacts regulations that are not unreasonable and inconsistent with regulations established by state law so long as the state regulatory scheme does not occupy the field.

That is, while a local ordinance is preempted when it bans an activity that is authorized and regulated by state law, a local governmental unit may add to the conditions in a statute as long as the additional requirements do not contradict the requirements set forth in the statute.

A court must review both the statute and the local ordinance to determine whether conflict preemption applies.

  1. MCL 333.26424(a) and (b) provide that qualifying patients and primary caregivers are immune from arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, including, but not limited to, civil penalty or disciplinary action for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the MMMA.

In turn, MCL 333.26424(b)(2) provides that primary caregivers and qualifying patients must keep their plants in an enclosed, locked facility in order to qualify for the immunity.

This requirement sets forth the type of structure marijuana plants must be kept and grown in for a patient or a caregiver to be entitled to the MMMA protections in MCL 333.26424(a) and (b), but the provision does not address where marijuana may be grown.

Under Ter Beek v City of Wyoming, 495 Mich 1 (2014), a local ordinance conflicts with the MMMA when the ordinance results in a complete prohibition of the medical use of marijuana; however, The MMMA does not foreclose all local regulation of marijuana.

In that regard, the act does not nullify a municipality’s inherent authority to regulate land use under the MZEA as long as (1) the municipality does not prohibit or penalize the cultivation of medical marijuana and (2) the municipality does not impose regulations that are unreasonable and inconsistent with regulations established by state law.

Because an enclosed, locked facility may be found in various locations on various types of property, a local regulation limiting where medical marijuana must be cultivated within a locality does not conflict with the statutory requirement that marijuana plants be kept in an enclosed, locked facility.

In this case, the township’s ordinance allowed for the medical use of marijuana by a registered primary caregiver but placed limitations on where the caregiver could cultivate marijuana within the township.

The ordinance’s geographical restriction added to and complemented the limitations imposed by the MMMA; it did not directly conflict with the MMMA.

While the ordinance went further in its regulation than the MMMA, the township appropriately used its authority under the MZEA to craft an ordinance that did not directly conflict with the MMMA’s provision requiring that marijuana be cultivated in an enclosed, locked facility. The township also had authority under the MZEA to require zoning permits and permit fees for the use of buildings and structures within its jurisdiction.

The township’s ordinance requiring primary caregivers to obtain a permit and pay a fee before using a building or structure within the township to cultivate medical marijuana did not directly conflict with the MMMA because the ordinance did not effectively prohibit the medical use of marijuana, and DeRuiter did not argue that the requirements for obtaining a permit were so unreasonable as to create a conflict.

To the extent that DeRuiter argued that the immunity provisions of the MMMA contributed to a blanket prohibition on local governments regulating the medical use of marijuana with respect to time, place, and manner of such use, that argument sounded in field preemption; but neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeals reached the issue of field preemption, and DeRuiter conceded that her appeal did not concern the issue of field preemption.

The Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of DeRuiter.

Reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

See the Syllabus and Michigan Supreme Court Opinion

If you are medical marijuana patient or caregiver facing any type of legal action contact attorney Michael Komorn.  The Komorn Law firm has a long history of fighting for the rights of medical marijuana patients and caregivers.

Visit Our Website KomornLaw.com or Call Our Office 248-357-2550

Michigan Supreme Court Gives OK to Phones in Courts

Michigan Supreme Court Gives OK to Phones in Courts

The Michigan Supreme Court says the public can bring laptops, tablets and phones into local courthouses.

The public can now bring cell phone, tablets and laptops into Michigan courthouses under a groundbreaking policy announced Wednesday by the state Supreme Court.

The new rule covers the use of electronic devices in courtrooms and clerk’s offices, where public documents are stored.

Of course many elected clerks had opposed the policy during the drafting stage because it would allow people who voted for them to copy PUBLIC RECORDS and avoid fees source of revenue beyond what they are already absconding anyway.  Surely they will make it up somewhere else like the government always does.

The rule change improves access and “will help make sure the doors to our courts are open to all,” Chief Justice Bridget McCormack said.

The public can bring electronic devices into courtrooms to take notes, use the internet or exchange email and text messages, under the rule, which starts May 1 in circuit, district and probate courts.

Photos or video are prohibited unless approved by a judge.

Copies of court documents can be made as long as the “device leaves no mark or impression on the document and does not unreasonably interfere with the operation of the clerk’s office,” the rule states.

The rule says judges can restrict devices if the activity “is disruptive or distracting to a court proceeding.”

Policies regarding phones have varied throughout the state. In Macomb County and Kent County the courthouse allows phones but Oakland County and the Wayne County criminal courthouses do not.

The Michigan Supreme Court, Local Control and Medical Marijuana

The Michigan Supreme Court, Local Control and Medical Marijuana

Do cities and townships have the ability to restrict where caregivers grow medical marijuana?

Over the course of the legalization of Medical and Recreational marijuana many have debated about whether control over dispensaries should be at the local or state level.

Well the Michigan Supreme Court has decided to take that question on as it relates to the Medical Marijuana market.

A 2016 event in Byron Township, which is located south of Grand Rapids.  A medical marijuana caregiver as well as patient registered with the state as a medical marijuana commercial grower back in 2016. 

The township has zoning laws that restrict medical marijuana caregivers to use their homes for their grow operations and prohibits the use of commercial property. The township also requires caregivers to obtain a local permit.

The Township then ordered the patient to stop all operations the same year. 

The medical marijuana grower then sued the Township.

In July of 2018 when the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld a lower trial court’s decision that stated there is no provision in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act that would allow a municipality to restrict where caregivers can grow medical marijuana.

Serious about getting a license to operate a Cannabis Business?
PROTECT YOURSELF – DO IT THE LEGAL WAY FROM THE START
Contact Komorn Law… 800-656-3557

The Court of Appeals concluded:

We conclude that the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act permits medical use of marijuana, particularly the cultivation of marijuana by registered caregivers, at locations regardless of land use zoning designations as long as the activity occurs within the statutorily specified enclosed, locked facility

After that Court of Appeals ruling Byron Township, the Michigan Townships Association and the Michigan Municipal League appealed the ruling to our state Supreme Court.  That is the status today.

Lawyers for the Michigan Municipal League wrote in their amicus brief:

The voters who approved the MMMA did not clearly intend to immunize medical marijuana patients and caregivers from all local land use laws, and the Court of Appeals’ finding of such immunity ignores both that lack of intent and the very concept of local home rule


It makes a lot more sense to have people who are truly accountable to the public making the decisions

This situation will certainly have an eye kept on it