People v Hess
Key claim: The Michigan Supreme Court unanimously held that a trial court may not prohibit MRTMA-compliant marijuana use as a probation condition solely because such use violates federal law, because the federal Controlled Substances Act does not preempt the MRTMA and the probation act is superseded by the MRTMA to the extent it incorporates federal marijuana prohibitions.
Abstract
Michigan Supreme Court opinion decided 2026-07-06. Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan
Syllabus Chief Justice: Justices: Megan K. Cavanagh Brian K. Zahra Richard H. Bernstein Elizabeth M. Welch Kyra H. Bolden Kimberly A. Thomas Noah P. Hood
This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been Reporter of Decisions: prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Kimberly K. Muschong
PEOPLE v HESS
Docket No. 167895. Argued March 11, 2026 (Calendar No. 1). Decided July 6, 2026.
Danielle Heaven-Leah Hess pleaded guilty in the 64B District Court to one count of third-
degree retail fraud, MCL 750.356d(4), after she stole clothing from Meijer. The district court,
Adam Eggleston, J., sentenced defendant to serve 12 months’ probation under the Holmes
Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA), MCL 762.11. The probation order prohibited defendant from
using or possessing marijuana but did not provide a reason for imposing that prohibition. While
on probation, defendant tested positive for marijuana, and she pleaded guilty to a probation-
violation charge. Thereafter, defendant tested positive for marijuana and was once again charged
with a probation violation. Defendant moved the district court to amend the terms of her probation
to allow her to use and possess marijuana in a manner compliant with the Michigan Regulation
and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), MCL 333.27951 et seq., to vacate her first violation,
and to dismiss her second violation. Defendant argued that the MRTMA barred courts from
prohibiting probationers from engaging in MRTMA-compliant marijuana use. The district court
rejected defendant’s argument, denied her motion to amend her probation conditions, found her
guilty of a probation violation, revoked her HYTA status, and sentenced her to serve 10 days in
jail. The Montcalm Circuit Court, Suzanne Hoseth Kreeger, J., stayed the jail sentence pending
appeal but otherwise affirmed the district court’s judgment. Defendant appealed, and the Court of
Appeals, SWARTZLE, P.J., and REDFORD and FEENEY, JJ., affirmed. ___ Mich App ___ (October
24, 2024) (Docket No. 366148). The Court of Appeals held that because MCL 771.3(1)(a) of the
probation act, MCL 771.1 et seq., prohibits probationers from violating federal law, and because
recreational marijuana use is illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 USC
801 et seq., the probation act allows—and arguably requires—sentencing courts to prohibit
MRTMA-compliant marijuana use as a probation condition. Defendant sought leave to appeal in
the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court granted the application. ___ Mich ___; 19 NW3d 324
(2025).
In a unanimous opinion by Justice WELCH, the Supreme Court held:
A trial court may not prohibit MRTMA-compliant marijuana use as a probation condition
solely because such use violates federal law. The Court of Appeals failed to apply the preemption
principles elucidated in Ter Beek v City of Wyoming, 495 Mich 1 (2014), that make clear that
federal law barring recreational marijuana use does not preempt the MRTMA. Furthermore, the
probation act is inconsistent with the MRTMA to the extent it incorporates federal marijuana prohibitions.
1. The CSA does not preempt MCL 333.27955(1) of the MRTMA. Ter Beek, which held
that the CSA’s ban on marijuana use did not preempt the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq., informed the interpretation of the MRTMA. The MMMA authorizes qualified patients to possess and use, and registered caregivers to cultivate and possess, marijuana for medicinal purposes. The MRTMA legalized nonmedicinal marijuana use. Voters approved the MMMA in 2008, and they approved the MRTMA in 2018. These acts share many textual similarities, and the reasoning applied in Ter Beek with respect to the MMMA applies equally to the MRTMA. In conducting the preemption analysis, the relevant inquiry is whether there is a positive conflict between the two statutes such that they cannot consistently stand together. 21 USC 844(a) of the CSA prohibits recreational marijuana use. MCL 333.27955(1) of the MRTMA provides Michiganders with state-law immunity from arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner for MRTMA-compliant acts; this immunity does not purport to prohibit federal criminalization of, or punishment for, that conduct. Furthermore, the MRTMA does not stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of the CSA because the state-law immunity that the MRTMA provides does not purport to alter the CSA’s federal criminalization of marijuana or to interfere with or undermine federal enforcement of that prohibition. Accordingly, there is no positive conflict between the CSA and MCL 333.27955(1) of the MRTMA such that the two cannot consistently stand together.
2. The probation act is inconsistent with the MRTMA to the extent it incorporates federal
marijuana prohibitions. MCL 771.3(1)(a) of the probation act prohibits probationers from violating federal law, and 21 USC 844(a) of the CSA prohibits recreational marijuana use. The probation act is a state law, and MCL 333.27954(5) of the MRTMA provides that all state laws inconsistent with the MRTMA do not apply to conduct that is permitted by the MRTMA. Accordingly, insofar as the probation act is inconsistent with the MRTMA, the MRTMA controls. MCL 333.27952 provides, in pertinent part, that the intent of the MRTMA is to prevent arrest and penalty for MRTMA-compliant marijuana use; MCL 333.27952 further instructs courts that to the fullest extent possible, the MRTMA shall be interpreted in accordance with this stated intent. Accordingly, the probation act’s absolute bar on MRTMA-compliant marijuana use because it violates federal law is inconsistent with the MRTMA’s stated intent as well as its express dictates. A trial court may not prohibit MRTMA-compliant marijuana use as a probation condition solely because such use violates federal law.
Court of Appeals’ judgment reversed. Case remanded to the trial court to reconsider
defendant’s motion to amend the terms of her probation, to vacate her first violation, and to dismiss her second violation. Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan
OPINION Chief Justice: Justices: Megan K. Cavanagh Brian K. Zahra Richard H. Bernstein Elizabeth M. Welch Kyra H. Bolden Kimberly A. Thomas
Why this matters
People v Hess is primarily a criminal procedure/probation ruling rather than a labor or economic development matter, so it has limited direct bearing on this area’s pages. While it touches Michigan’s marijuana regulatory framework tangentially connected to the cannabis-waste-regulation legislative package, the holding concerns judicially-imposed probation conditions and federal preemption analysis, not the business, tax, or employment dimensions of cannabis regulation tracked here.