Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming
823 N.W.2d 864
Mich. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff John Ter Beek, a qualified medical-marijuana patient, challenges Wyoming’s zoning ordinance § 90-66 enacted November 1, 2010 that prohibits uses contrary to federal law, state law, or local ordinance.
- Plaintiff grows and uses marijuana for medical purposes within Wyoming, presumably in compliance with the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA).
- Plaintiff contends the ordinance preempts the MMMA by prohibiting medical use permitted under state law, creating a direct conflict with MMMA while being aligned with the federal CSA.
- The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the City of Wyoming, concluding the CSA preempts MMMA.
- On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals reverses, holding the MMMA’s immunity provision preempts the ordinance and that the CSA does not preempt MMMA.
- The court remands for summary disposition in favor of plaintiff and voids the ordinance to the extent it bans medical use as permitted by MMMA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Wyoming ordinance directly conflict with MMMA and thus be preempted by state law? | Ter Beek: ordinance prohibits medical use despite MMMA permits; direct conflict exists. | Wyoming: ordinance enforces federal prohibition on marijuana and aligns with CSA. | Yes, the ordinance is void to the extent it bans MMMA-compliant medical use (state preemption). |
| Is MMMA preempted by the federal CSA to the extent that its immunity would be overridden? | MMMA immunity cannot be overridden by CSA; not preempted. | CSA preempts MMMA by making marijuana illegal nationwide. | CSA does not preempt MMMA; MMMA immunity from penalties stands against state action. |
| If no preemption, may federal law still require enforcement that defeats MMMA? | Federal law cannot compel state to criminalize medical marijuana use under MMMA. | CSA creates national prohibition that preempts state allowances. | CS A does not compel state-level prohibition of MMMA medical-use immunities; no obstacle to MMMA immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walsh v. City of River Rouge, 385 Mich 623 (1971) (directly conflicts when local prohibits what statute permits)
- USA Cash #1, Inc. v City of Saginaw, 285 Mich App 262 (2009) (direct-conflict and field preemption concepts applied to local regulation vs. state statute)
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (federal supremacy aims to regulate all marijuana uses; CSA objectives)
- Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) (states cannot be compelled to enforce federal acts; limits on federal command)
- New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) (federal government cannot compel state regulation of activities)
- Hillsborough County v. Automated Med. Labs., 471 U.S. 707 (1985) (explains impossibility vs. obstacle preemption)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (presence of police powers; preemption depends on Congress intent)
- People v. Kolanek, 491 Mich 382 (2012) (MMMA immunity context and state interests)