Michigan Supreme Court: Federal Prohibition Does Not Justify Banning Cannabis Use for Those on Probation 

The Michigan Supreme Court last week ruled that state courts cannot solely cite federal law as a reason to ban cannabis use in probation sentences, the Detroit Free Press reports. In People v. Hess, the Supreme Court unanimously found that lower courts had erroneously cited federal law when deciding it was legal to ban cannabis use for people on probation. 

Writing for the court, Justice Elizabeth Welch cited a 2014 case, Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, in which the court ruled that state medical cannabis laws preempted federal laws related to cannabis and that decision should be applied to the state’s adult-use laws as well.   

“The (Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act) provides that MRTMA-compliant use of marijuana shall not be grounds for arrest, prosecution, penalty, search, or the denial of any right or privilege. And when the MRTMA conflicts with state laws – including the probation act – the MRTMA controls.” — Welch, in the decision, via the Free Press 

Welch added that, in People v. Hess, the state Court of Appeals incorrectly deferred to federal cannabis prohibition rather than state law and “In so doing … failed to apply the preemption principles” outlined in Ter Beek.  

“Those principles make clear that federal law barring recreational marijuana use does not preempt the MRTMA,” Welch wrote in the decision.   

Montcalm County Prosecutor Thomas Ginster, who argued the state’s case to the Supreme Court, told the Free Press that the ruling still allows courts to prohibit cannabis use as a probation condition if individual screenings are done for potential substance use risks; however, Ginster added that providing individual screenings for every person facing probation at the local level “is unworkable,” due to resource constraints, particularly in smaller communities.