Background
Danielle Heaven-Leah Hess pleaded guilty to third-degree retail fraud (MCL 750.356d(4)) after stealing clothing from a Meijer store. The 64B District Court sentenced her to 12 months’ probation under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA), which included a blanket prohibition on marijuana use and possession — imposed without any stated rationale. While on probation, Hess twice tested positive for marijuana. After the second positive test, she moved to amend her probation terms to permit marijuana use compliant with the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), MCL 333.27951 et seq., and to vacate or dismiss the probation violations. The district court denied her motion, revoked her HYTA status, and sentenced her to 10 days in jail.
The Montcalm Circuit Court affirmed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in a published opinion. The Court of Appeals reasoned that MCL 771.3(1)(a) of the probation act mandates that probationers not violate any federal criminal law, and because recreational marijuana use remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 USC 801 et seq., courts were required to prohibit MRTMA-compliant marijuana use as a condition of probation. The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
The Supreme Court also noted a significant regulatory development: in April 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice reclassified FDA-approved marijuana drug products and state-licensed medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the CSA — though recreational marijuana remained federally illegal, and the court determined this reclassification did not affect its analysis.
The Court’s Holding
In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Welch, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The court held that a trial court may not prohibit MRTMA-compliant marijuana use as a probation condition solely because such use violates federal law. The court applied the preemption framework from Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 495 Mich 1 (2014) — which held the CSA did not preempt the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) — and extended that reasoning to the MRTMA. Because the MRTMA, like the MMMA, grants state-law immunity from arrest, prosecution, or penalty for compliant conduct without purporting to alter or obstruct federal enforcement, there is no “positive conflict” between the CSA and MCL 333.27955(1) requiring preemption.
The court further held that the probation act, MCL 771.1 et seq., is a state law subject to the MRTMA’s supremacy clause, MCL 333.27954(5), which provides that all state laws inconsistent with the MRTMA do not apply to MRTMA-permitted conduct. Because the probation act’s incorporation of the federal marijuana prohibition creates a blanket bar on MRTMA-compliant use, it conflicts with the MRTMA’s express intent to prevent “arrest and penalty” for such use. To that extent, the MRTMA controls and the probation act’s mandatory bar does not apply.
The court expressly declined to address whether a court may, as a discretionary and individually tailored probation condition under MCL 771.3(3), restrict a particular probationer’s marijuana use based on case-specific circumstances — that question was not reached by the Court of Appeals and was left open for remand. The case was remanded for the trial court to reconsider Hess’s motion to amend her probation terms, vacate her first violation, and dismiss her second violation.
Key Takeaways
- Michigan courts may not impose a blanket prohibition on MRTMA-compliant marijuana use as a mandatory probation condition solely by reference to the federal CSA’s criminalization of recreational marijuana.
- The Ter Beek preemption analysis — originally applied to the MMMA — extends equally to the MRTMA: the CSA does not preempt MCL 333.27955(1) because the MRTMA grants only state-law immunity and does not purport to interfere with federal enforcement.
- The MRTMA’s supremacy clause (MCL 333.27954(5)) overrides conflicting state laws, including the probation act’s mandatory federal-law compliance condition (MCL 771.3(1)(a)), to the extent they bar MRTMA-compliant conduct.
- Whether a court may impose a discretionary, individualized marijuana restriction as a probation condition under MCL 771.3(3) remains an open question, to be addressed on remand and in future cases.
Why It Matters
This decision has immediate practical consequences for sentencing courts throughout Michigan. Judges can no longer treat a marijuana prohibition as an automatic, mandatory component of every probation order simply by invoking federal law. Defense attorneys now have clear grounds to challenge blanket marijuana conditions imposed without individualized justification, and probationers who have been penalized for MRTMA-compliant use may seek relief.
The ruling also signals the court’s commitment to applying the voter-enacted MRTMA as written, including its express directive that the act be interpreted to prevent arrest and penalty for compliant conduct “to the fullest extent possible.” While the court’s silence on discretionary marijuana conditions leaves room for future litigation — particularly where marijuana use is directly connected to the underlying offense — People v. Hess firmly establishes that federal illegality alone cannot be the basis for restricting a right Michigan voters granted to adults over 21.