368 P.3d 1131
Mont.2016Background
- Montana replaced the 2004 voter-approved medical-marijuana regime with the 2011 Montana Marijuana Act (the Act), imposing new limits on patient eligibility, physicians, providers, advertising, inspections, and probationer eligibility.
- Plaintiffs (industry association, providers, patients, physicians) challenged multiple provisions as facial violations of Montana equal protection, substantive due process, and free-speech guarantees; the District Court issued injunctions against several provisions and upheld others.
- The State appealed the injunctions against: (a) the Dept. reporting trigger for physicians who certify 25+ patients/year; (b) commercial prohibitions (three-patient provider cap and bans on remuneration and sales); and (c) the provider-advertising ban. Plaintiffs cross-appealed the court’s refusal to enjoin warrantless inspection and the probationer ban.
- This is a facial-challenge posture; plaintiffs must show the statutes are invalid in all applications to prevail. The Court applies Montana rational-basis review for most substantive-due-process/equal-protection challenges, Central Hudson for commercial-speech, and Burger/closely regulated-industry principles for inspections.
- The Montana Supreme Court affirms in part and reverses in part: it upholds the 25-patient review trigger, the three-patient provider limit, and the advertising ban; it invalidates and permanently enjoins the absolute remuneration/sale prohibitions; and it upholds the probationer ban and warrantless-inspection scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25‑patient physician-review trigger (§ 50‑46‑303(10)) | Arbitrary and unnecessary; evidence shows Board controls abuses without this trigger. | Trigger is rationally related to preventing over‑certification and ensuring standard‑of‑care review. | Upheld: trigger survives rational‑basis review as a non‑arbitrary legislative means to address past abuses. |
| Commercial prohibitions — three‑patient provider cap (§ 50‑46‑308(3)) | Cap undermines access for patients who cannot grow; creates suspect classification. | Cap rationally limits commercial scale and reduces federal enforcement risk. | Upheld: three‑patient limit is rationally related to legitimate objective (limiting large‑scale production). |
| Commercial prohibitions — remuneration and sale bans (§ 50‑46‑308(4),(6)) | Blanket ban on compensation irrationally denies access to patients who cannot grow; discriminatory and disproportionate. | Ban removes money from market to avoid trafficking and federal scrutiny. | Struck down: absolute prohibition on remuneration/sales violates Montana equal‑protection and substantive‑due‑process principles; permanently enjoined. |
| Advertising prohibition (§ 50‑46‑341) | Overbroad and vague; restricts political/educational speech; should receive strict scrutiny. | Statute targets commercial advertising only; apply Central Hudson commercial‑speech test. | Upheld: construed to bar only commercial advertising; fails Central Hudson’s first factor because marijuana is unlawful under federal law, so restriction passes. |
| Probationer ban (§ 50‑46‑307(4)) | Facial challenge: categorical ban denies access to medical treatment without individualized consideration. | Ban is rational; facial challenge improper because some applications are constitutional. | Upheld: not facially invalid; as‑applied challenges remain available (sentencing courts can impose or consider conditions). |
| Warrantless inspections (§ 50‑46‑329) | Functionally law‑enforcement searches without administrative regulatory framework; violates privacy rights. | Marijuana is a highly regulated subject and inspections are limited to registered premises; Burger closely‑regulated‑industry exception applies. | Upheld: on its face the inspection scheme is a permissible regulatory exception to warrant requirement; facial challenge fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (standards for facial constitutional challenges)
- Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) (four‑part test for commercial‑speech regulation)
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (federal Controlled Substances Act precludes characterizing marijuana use as lawful under federal law)
- New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987) (closely‑regulated‑industry administrative‑inspection exception to warrant requirement)
- Powell v. State Comp. Fund, 15 P.3d 877 (Mont. 2000) (rational‑basis presumption and substantive due‑process framework under Montana law)
- Ward v. Johnson, 277 P.3d 1216 (Mont. 2012) (legislative classifications need not be mathematically exact to survive rational‑basis review)
- Montana Cannabis Industry Ass’n v. State (MCIA I), 286 P.3d 1161 (Mont. 2012) (prior Montana Supreme Court decision clarifying that plaintiffs have no fundamental right to medical marijuana)