Montana Cannabis Industry Ass'n v. State, 286 P.3d 1161

Montana voters previously approved the Medical Marijuana Act (1-148) in 2004, which was repealed by SB 423 to create the Montana Marijuana Act (MMA).
SB 423 replaced 1-148, altering cultivation, distribution, and use of medical marijuana in Montana.
Plaintiffs (Montana Cannabis Industry Association and others) sued to enjoin MMA provisions; the District Court issued a preliminary injunction.
The District Court enjoined MMA provisions restricting provider cardholder limits (308(3),(4)), compensation (308(6)(a)), and prohibition on certain transfers (308(6)(b)).
State and Plaintiffs cross-appealed; issues include whether strict scrutiny was applied and which MMA provisions to enjoin; on appeal the court remanded for rational-basis analysis and to address remaining issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether strict scrutiny was properly applied to enjoin 50-46-308(3),(4),(6)(a),(6)(b).	Plaintiffs argued these provisions implicate fundamental rights and require strict scrutiny.	State contends rational-basis scrutiny should apply given the right-to-employment/health/privacy claims.	The Court held issues must be remanded to apply rational-basis review.
Whether the District Court erred in not enjoining 50-46-308(2).	Plaintiffs contend the state law provision should be enjoined.	State argues the provision does not warrant injunctive relief under the record.	Not addressed on the merits here; remanded on Issue One to rational-basis analysis; other issues left for later.
Whether the District Court erred in not enjoining 50-46-308(7).	Plaintiffs maintain the provision should be enjoined as part of MMA.	State argues it should not be enjoined independently.	Not addressed on the merits; remanded for rational-basis analysis (Issue One).
Whether the MMA should be enjoined in its entirety.	Plaintiffs seek broader injunction to block MMA.	State defends MMA as a valid exercise of police power.	Court declined to decide; remanded to apply rational-basis test to specific sections.

Wadsworth v. State, 911 P.2d 1165 (Mont. 1996) (fundamental right to pursue employment subject to police power)
Wiser v. State, 129 P.3d 133 (Mont. 2006) (fundamental rights and regulation of health/medical treatment; strict scrutiny where applicable)
Armstrong v. State, 989 P.2d 364 (Mont. 1999) (privacy rights in medical procedures; limits on access rights to care)
Privitera, 591 P.2d 919 (Cal. 1979) (right to obtain unapproved drug not protected by privacy; rational basis)
Carnohan v. United States, 616 F.2d 1120 (9th Cir. 1980) (privacy rights do not guarantee access to unapproved drugs)
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2005) (federal supremacy over state law for controlled substances)
Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (U.S. 2012) (Supremacy Clause; federal law preempts conflicting state laws)
Plan Helena, Inc. v. Helena Reg'l Airport Auth. Bd., 355 Mont. 142, 226 P.3d 567 (Mont. 2010) (jurisdiction and justiciability; advisory opinions)
Reichert v. State, 365 Mont. 92, 278 P.3d 455 (Mont. 2012) (justiciability; limits on advisory opinions and abstract questions)
Med. Marijuana Growers Assn. v. Corrigan, 365 Mont. 346, 281 P.3d 210 (Mont. 2012) (discussions of justiciability in medical marijuana context)