Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming
495 Mich. 1
| Mich. | 2014Background
- Michigan Supreme Court case Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, addressing immunity for MMMA conduct §4(a) vs local ordinance § 90-66 prohibiting penalties for actions contrary to federal law.
- Ter Beek, an MMMA qualifying patient with registry card, sought to grow/consume marijuana at home consistent with MMMA; city ordinance subjected such activity to civil penalties.
- Circuit court granted summary disposition for the City; Court of Appeals reversed, holding CSA did not preempt §4(a) and immunity did not obstruct federal enforcement.
- Court granted leave to appeal; issue centered on preemption: whether the CSA preempts MMMA or whether MMMA immunities preempt the ordinance.
- Michigan Supreme Court held: CSA does not preempt §4(a); §4(a) preempts the ordinance by immunizing MMMA-compliant conduct from penalties, remanding for entry of summary disposition in Ter Beek.
- Constitutional and statutory preemption analysis focused on Supremacy Clause, 21 USC 903, impossibility vs obstacle preemption, and the relationship between MMMA, CSA, and MZEA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CSA preempts MMMA §4(a)? | Ter Beek contends CSA preempts §4(a) immunity. | City argues CSA preempts MMMA immunity. | CSA does not preempt §4(a). |
| Does §4(a) immunize MMMA conduct from local penalties, conflicting with the Ordinance? | Immunity from penalties bars penalties under the Ordinance. | Ordinance can regulate penalties despite §4(a). | §4(a) preempts the Ordinance as applied to MMMA-compliant conduct. |
| Is the Ordinance preempted by MMMA under Michigan Constitution (field/occupancy)? | Ordinance conflicts with MMMA immunity. | MMMA does not occupy the field to bar local regulation. | Ordinance is preempted by §4(a) of the MMMA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan Canners & Freezers Ass’n v Agricultural Marketing & Bargaining Bd, 467 US 461 (Supreme Court 1984) (preemption by federal act when state law purposes conflict with federal Act)
- Raich v. Gonzalez, 545 US 1 (US 2005) (federal authority over controlled substances; medical-use conflicts noted)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 US 555 (US 2009) (preemption and the role of congressional purpose in pre-emption analysis)
- Hillsborough County v. Automated Med. Labs., Inc., 471 US 707 (US 1985) (Supremacy Clause preemption framework; obstacle/field concepts)
- Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 US 363 (US 2000) (obstacle preemption; states’ authority considerations)
- Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 348 Or. 159 (Or. 2010) (distinguishable preemption reasoning; Oregon case cited and limited)
- Kolanek, 491 Mich. 382 (Mich. 2012) (MMMA does not create general right to use marijuana; immunity scope)
- Bylsma, 493 Mich. 17 (Mich. 2012) (statutory interpretation of MMMA's immunity)
- McQueen, 493 Mich. 135 (Mich. 2013) (nuisance reasoning; MMMA compliance limits)
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (US 2005) (federal supremacy and controlled substances regime)