Supreme Court Will Decide if Michigan Cities can Ban Medical Marijuana

The city of Wyoming argues that it can reject the voter-approved MMMA because it violates federal law. This week, attorneys will argue before the State Supreme Court whether the city, and thereby any Michigan city, can reject the act.

The whole ordeal began in 2010 when attorney John Ter Beek filed a lawsuit in the Kent County Circuit Court against the city because of its decision to ban medical marijuana distribution by anyone other than a licensed pharmacist. Ter Beek was supported by the ACLU to defend the MMMA which was passed by 63% of the voters in Michigan, and 59% of the voters in Wyoming, MI.

In 2011, Kent County Circuit Court Judge Dennis Leiber ruled that the federal law against marijuana use trumps the state’s medical marijuana act.

But last year, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed Leiber’s ruling.

“The (federal drug law) provisions do not preempt the MMMA’s grant of immunity as found in (the Medical Marijuana Act) because it is well established that Congress cannot require the states to enforce federal law,” the court wrote.

On Thursday, Oct. 10, the Michigan Supreme Court will hear arguments by Detroit-based ACLU attorney Daniel Korobkin representing Ter Beek and Wyoming City Attorney Jack Sluiter.

Briefs have been filed in support of the city by the Prosecuting Attorney’s Association of Michigan, the Michigan State Bar Association-Corporate Section, the city of Livonia and the Michigan Municipal League.

Briefs in support of Ter Beek have been filed by libertarian think tank The Cato Institute and Cannabis Attorneys of Mid-Michigan.

In agreeing to hear the case, the State Supreme Court has asked attorneys to focus on whether the state law is preempted by federal law and whether the city ordinance violates the state law.

Oral arguments are scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. Thursday and can be seen streaming online on at the Michigan Courts website: courts.mi.gov.

Ter Beek V. City of Wyoming is among the first cases that will be considered by the court in its new term and it has until July 31, 2014, to issue its decision.