MT Supreme Court Delay Enforcement on Medical Marijuana

8/18/2019 MT Supreme Court Delay Enforcement on Medical Marijuana

1/11

INTHE

SUPREME

COURT

OF THESTATEOF

MONT

T

,

E

D

DA

5-0055

MONTANA

CANNABIS INDUSTRY

ASSOCIATION,

MARCMATTHEWS,SHELLY

YEAGER,

ESSE

RUMBLE, OHN

STOWERS,

.D.,

POINT

HATFIELD,

n d CHARLIE HAMP,

P l a i n t i f f s , A p p e l l e e s

a n d

C r o s s - A p p e l l a n t s ,

v .

STATE OFMONTANA,

D e f e n d a n t , A p p e l l a n t

a n d

C r o s s - A p p e l l e e .

A P R 2

0 1 6

Ed

mith

CLERK

OF

THE

SUPREME

COURT

STATE

OF

MONTANA

ORDER

ON

PETITION

FOR

REHEARING

AND

MOTION

TO STAY

P l a i n t i f f s Montana

Cannabis

I n d u s t r y A s s o c i a t i o n , e t a l . , s e e k

r e h e a r i n g

of t h i s

C o u r t ' s

February

25,

2016,

Opinion

u p h o l d i n g

most p r o v i s i o n s of

t h e

2011

Montana

Marijuana

Act,

§§

50-46-301

t o

- 3 4 4 , MCA. I n p a r t i c u l a r , P l a i n t i f f s a s k t h i s Court

t o

r e c o n s i d e r

and

r e v e r s e

i t s

r u l i n g t h a t

t h e

t h r e e - p e r s o n

l i m i t on t h e n um b e r of

m e d i c a l

m a r i j u a n a

p a t i e n t s a p r o v i d e r m a y s e r v e p a s s e s

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l muster under

a

r a t i o n a l

b a s i s

t e s t .

Mont.

Cannabis

I n d .

A s s o c .

v .

S t a t e

of

Montana, 2016

MT

4,

I N 50,

83

(MCIA I I ) . I n

a d d i t i o n ,

P l a i n t i f f s

r e q u e s t t h e

Court

t o d e l a y t h e

e f f e c t i v e

d a t e of t s

Opinion i n

o r d e r t o p r o v i d e a

t r a n s i t i o n

p e r i o d

and

t o g i v e t h e L e g i s l a t u r e

an

o p p o r t u n i t y

t o

c o n s i d e r m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o

t h e A c t . The S t a t e opposes r e h e a r i n g and

o f f e r s t h a t

t h e

sa m e 49-day t r a n s i t i o n

p e r i o d t h e

2011 L e g i s l a t u r e

p r o v i d e d i n t h e Act

would be

an

a p p r o p r i a t e t r a n s i t i o n p e r i o d f o r t h e

e f f e c t i v e

d a t e of h e C o u r t ' s Opinion. S.B. 423 § 35,

62d Leg. Reg.

e s s .

(Mont. 0 1 1 ) .

This Court

w i l l

c o n s i d e r

a

p e t i t i o n

f o r

r e h e a r i n g

o n l y

on

t h e

f o l l o w i n g g r o u n d s :

( i ) t ] h a t i t

o v e r l o o k e d

s o m e

f a c t m a t e r i a l t o t h e d e c i s i o n ; ( i i )

[ t ] h a t

i t o v e r l o o k e d a

q u e s t i o n

p r e s e n t e d b y c o u n s e l

t h a t would have proven

d e c i s i v e t o t h e

c a s e ;

o r i i i )

[ t ] h a t

i t s d e c i s i o n

c o n f l i c t s

w i t h

a s t a t u t e o r c o n t r o l l i n g

d e c i s i o n not

a d d r e s s e d b y t h e sup r em e

c o u r t .

M.

. App. P.

2 0 ( 1 ) ( a ) .

We o n c l u d e t h a t P l a i n t i f f s a r e not e n t i t l e d t o r e h e a r i n g

April 25 201

Case Number: DA 15


2/11

on t h e t h r e e - p a t i e n t l i m i t , §

5 0 - 4 6 - 3 0 8 ( 3 ) , MCA.

Although P l a i n t i f f s a r g u e t h a t t h e

C o u r t ' s

Opinion

o v e r l o o k s t h e l a r g e r p i c t u r e

and e f f e c t s

an i r r a t i o n a l r e s u l t , t h e y

p r i m a r i l y r e a r g u e m a t t e r s c o n t a i n e d

i n t h e i r b r i e f s on

a p p e a l

t h a t

t h e Court t h o r o u g h l y

c o n s i d e r e d

i n r e a c h i n g

i t s

d e c i s i o n .

P l a i n t i f f s '

arguments do not meet t h e

s t a n d a r d s

f o r

g r a n t i n g r e h e a r i n g under

t h e

Rule.

They p r e s e n t a d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e r e l i e f h e y seek i n t h e i r p e t i t i o n .

P l a i n t i f f s r e q u e s t t h a t t h e

second

q u e s t i o n

t h e y

r a i s e

s h o u l d be t r e a t e d a s a p e t i t i o n t o s t a y

t h e r e m i t t i t u r . P l a i nt i f f s a s k t h e

Court

t o

d e l a y t h e

e f f e c t i v e d a t e of

h e

Opinion

u n t i l t h e

c o n c l u s i o n of h e n e x t

l e g i s l a t i v e s e s s i o n . They

i n c l u d e w i t h

t h e i r P e t i t i o n

an

a f f i d a v i t

from Roy Kem p,

I n t e r i m

A d m i n i s t r a t o r of

t h e

Q u a l i t y

Assurance

D i v i s i o n of t h e

Montana

Department

of

u b l i c

H e a l t h

and

Human

e r v i c e s , d i s c u s s i n g

t h e

s t a t u s

of

h e

Department's a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of h e m e d i c a l m a r i j u a n a program,

t h e

n um b e r

of

p a t i e n t s

and

p r o v i d e r s

i n

t h e Montana

Marijuana R e g i s t r y ,

and t h e

complexity

of h e

r e g u l a t o r y

a d j u s t m e n t s t h a t t h e Department

w i l l

have t o

u n d e r t a k e

i n

t h e

a f t e r m a t h of

h e

C o u r t ' s

d e c i s i o n . Kemp t a t e s t h a t i t w i l l

t a k e

a t

l e a s t f o u r months f o r

DPHHS o implement h e

r e q u i r e d r e g u l a t o r y changes a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s C o u r t ' s

d e c i s i o n .

I t

i s

r a r e ,

b u t n o t u n p r e c e d e n t e d ,

t h a t

t h i s Court w i l l d e l a y t h e

e f f e c t i v e

d a t e of t s

d e c i s i o n .

We

have

done

so o n l y

wh e n

we

conclude

t h a t

t h e C o u r t ' s

r u l i n g

w i l l

cause

s e r i o u s d i s r u p t i o n

o r

a v o i d i n

t h e

law. I n Helena

Elementary

Sch. D i s t .

No. 1 v . S t a t e of

Montana,

236

Mont. 44,

784 P.2d 4 12(1990), we

e l d

t h a t our Febru ary 1 , 1989, p i n i o n

d e c l a r i n g

u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

t h e s t a t e ' s

system

of funding

p u b l i c

e d u c a t i o n would n o t t a k e

e f f e c t u n t i l J u l y 1 , 1991, and on t h a t d a t e

t h e

h o l d i n g s

of

h i s

Opinion

s h a l l b e c o m e f u l l y

i n

e f f e c t

f o r

a l l

p u r p o s e s . Helena Elem. Sch. D i s t . No. 1 , 236 Mont.

a t

59, 784 P.2d

a t

4 1 3 (Supplemental

O p i n i o n ) . We concluded t h a t t h e

Court

p o s s e s s e s t h e e q u i t a b l e

powe r

t o postpone t h e e f f e c t

of

t s

o p i n i o n

t o a l l o w t h e l e g i s l a t u r e

and

t h e g o v e r n o r ' s

o f f i c e t i m e t o implement

a

s a t i s f a c t o r y s y s t e m

of chool unding

i n t h i s

S t a t e .

Helena

Elem. S c h . D i s t . No. 1 ,

236

Mont.

a t 60-61, 784 P.2d a t 4 1 3

(emphasis a d d e d ) . We

d e c l i n e d

t o

r e t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n

b e c a u s e l e g i s l a t i v e

changes

would r e q u i r e n e w

and

2


3/11

d i f f e r e n t proof and

c o u l d

be a d d r e s s e d , f

n e c e s s a r y , i n

a n e w and s e p a r a t e

c o u r t a c t i o n .

Helena Elem. c h . D i s t . No. 1 , 236 Mont.

t

60-61,

784

P.2d a t 4 1 3 .

I n Lee v . S t a t e

of

ontana,

195

Mont.

1 , 6 3 5 P.2d

1282

(1981), we

e l d

i n v a l i d a

s t a t u t e r e q u i r i n g t h e a t t o r n e y

g e n e r a l

t o d e c l a r e

by p r o c l a m a t i o n

a s t a t e w i d e speed l i m i t

whenever r e q u i r e d b y

f e d e r a l

law

a s

a

c o n d i t i o n

t o r e c e i v i n g f e d e r a l highway f u n d s .

Given

t h e

grave damage

t o t h e e conomy

i f

f e d e r a l

funds

w ere t o be

d i s c o n t i n u e d

b e c a u s e

of

h e C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n , we e t e r m i n e d

t h a t

t h e law s h o u l d remain i n

e f f e c t

u n t i l

such time a s

t h e

l e g i s l a t u r e m a y e n a c t

and t h e

governor appr ove m a x i m u m speed

l i m i t

l e g i s l a t i o n comporting w i t h t h e f e d e r a l

r e q u i r e m e n t s

and complying w i t h o u r s t a t e

c o n s t i t u t i o n .

Lee, 195 Mont.

t

1 1 ,

6 3 5

P.2d a t

1287.

As

h e

S t a t e

p o i n t s o u t , t h e r e

i s

one

i m p o r t a n t

d i s t i n c t i o n

between

t h e s e p r e v i o u s

d e c i s i o n s and

t h e

i n s t a n t

c a s e . Here, w e have,

w i t h

one

e x c e p t i o n ,

upheld t h e

L e g i s l a t u r e ' s

a c t i o n s ;

we have

n o t

i n v a l i d a t e d t h e Act and our d e c i s i o n does

n o t

r e q u i r e

f u r t h e r a c t i o n b y

t h e

L e g i s l a t u r e .

We a r e

c o g n i z a n t ,

however,

t h a t immediate

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of

h e C o u r t ' s Opinion w i l l c a u s e s e r i o u s

d i s r u p t i o n

i n a program t h a t

i s

r e g u l a t e d b y t h e S t a t e and h a s

been o p e r a t i n g f o r a

c o n s i d e r a b l e

p e r i o d of i m e . T h i s c a s e

i s

unique

b e c a u s e ,

w h i l e t h e l e g i s l a t i v e r e s t r i c t i o n s have been on t h e

books f o r n e a r l y f i v e

y e a r s ,

t h e

m e d i c a l m a r i j u a n a

b u s i n e s s

h a s

been

d e v e l o p i n g — f i r s t under

t h e

2004

Medical

Marijuana

Act

and

t h e n

under t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s

i n j u n c t i o n s — f o r o v e r

a

d e c a d e , and

t h e r e a r e

now mo r e t h a n 13,500 Montanans r e c e i v i n g

r n a r i j u a n a

f o r medical p u r p o s e s .

The

t r a n s i t i o n

p e r i o d p r o v i d e d

by

t h e 2011 L e g i s l a t u r e h a s

long s i n c e p a s s e d , and

t h e

e v e n t s

of

h e

p r e v i o u s

y e a r s

have

b u i l t

p u b l i c r e l i a n c e on

t h e

r e g u l a t o r y system i n

p l a c e

t h a t

h a s a l l o w e d

l i m i t e d

a c c e s s t o

m e d i c a l

m a r i j u a n a

f o r q u a l i f i e d i n d i v i d u a l s .

P l a i n t i f f s

s u b m i t t e d

e x t e n s i v e e v i d e n c e d u r i n g

t h e

D i s t r i c t Court

p r o c e e d i n g s

of

t h e

i m p a c t s t h a t t h e Act w i l l have on i n d i v i d u a l s

w i t h

d e b i l i t a t i n g m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n s .

We o n c l u d e d ,

p r o p e r l y , t h a t

such

e v i d e n c e

was

n o t

r e l e v a n t t o t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n whether

t h e L e g i s l a t u r e had

a c t e d

w i t h i n t h e

l i m i t s

of t s

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

a u t h o r i t y i n

e n a c t i n g

t h e

c h a l l e n g e d r e s t r i c t i o n s .

That

r u l i n g s t a n d s . The

e v i d e n c e i s ,

however,

r e l e v a n t t o t h e

3


4/11

c o n s i d e r a t i o n whether

t o

d e l a y t h e

e f f e c t i v e d a t e of

t h e C o u r t ' s

Opinion i n

o r d e r t o

p r o v i d e

s o m e t r a n s i t i o n

p e r i o d

f o r

t h e

E x e c u t i v e

Branch

and

m e m b e r s

of h e

p u b l i c

t o

c o m e

i n t o compliance

w i t h

t h e law. The

D i s t r i c t Court found from t h e e v i d e n c e i n

t h e

r e c o r d , b a s e d p r i m a r i l y on t h e t e s t i m o n y

of

t a t e

agency

r e p r e s e n t at i v e s , t h a t i n l i g h t

of

o t h e r p r o v i s i o n s

i n

t h e

2011 Act, t h e r e was no

e v i d e n c e

t h a t c o n c e r n s

m o t i v a t i n g t h e

A c t ' s p a s s a g e

remained—including marijuana c a r a v a n s , abuse of

h e law b y young and

o t h e r w i s e h e a l t h y i n d i v i d u a l s , c r i m e s

c o n n e c t e d t o g row o p e r a t i o n s , s t o r e f r o n t s and

improper

a d v e r t i s i n g , [and] growth of h e

commercial

m a r i j u a n a i n d u s t r y .

On

h e

o t h e r

hand,

t h e

D i s t r i c t Court c i t e d

e v i d e n c e of

s e v e r e l y d e b i l i t a t e d

i n d i v i d u a l s

w h o a r e

p h y s i c a l l y

u n a b l e t o grow m a r i j u a n a

f o r t h e i r o wn

m e d i c a l u s e , and of

n d i v i d u a l s

w h o

l i v e

i n f e d e r a l l y

s u b s i d i z e d

h o u s i n g ,

which

would

p r o h i b i t

them

from

a t t e m p t i n g

t o

grow

m a r i j u a n a

f o r

t h e i r own s e .

These

f a c t s

t e n d t o show t h a t ,

du e

t o t h e long d e l a y

i n


h e Act,

ma n y

Montanans m a y e x p e r i e n c e h a r d s h i p , o r be exposed t o t h e

p o t e n t i a l

f o r c r i m i n a l

l i a b i l i t y ,

i f

t h e C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t a k e s e f f e c t i m m e d i a t e l y . I n

a d d i t i o n ,

r e g u l a t o r y

changes

have o c c u r r e d

t h a t

w i l l have t o

be s u b s t a n t i a l l y a l t e r e d

i n

o r d e r

f o r

t h e

Act t o be

implemented c o n s i s t e n t

w i t h

t h e

C o u r t ' s Opinion.

We

t a t e d

i n

Lee,

We

ave

t h e

powe r

a s

an

a p p e l l a t e

c o u r t

t o

o r d e r t h e

e f f e c t

of

o u r

d e c i s i o n t o

be

r e t r o s p e c t i v e o r p r o s p e c t i v e , and i n e f f e c t , t o

p o s t p o n e t h e

e f f e c t i v e

d a t e

of

our d e c i s i o n . Such a c t i o n

i s

i n

o r d e r

h e r e . Lee,

195 Mont.

t

1 0 - 1 1 ,

6 3 5 P.2d a t

1287.

Under t h e

unique c i r c u m s t a n c e s

of

h i s c a s e , we conclude t h a t s i m i l a r a c t i o n i s

w a r r a n t e d

h e r e . We eny t h e P l a i n t i f f s ' r e q u e s t , however, o postpone

t h e

d e c i s i o n u n t i l

t h e

n e x t

L e g i s l a t u r e m e e t s ; t o do

so

would i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of what

we

have h e l d t o

be

a

v a l i d

A c t .

Suspending

a law

t h a t

we ave h e l d t o

be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

u n t i l

t h e

L e g i s l a t u r e r e v i s i t s

i t

would

i n s e r t t h e

j u d i c i a r y

i n t o

t h e

l e g i s l a t i v e p r o c e s s

and

would

v i o l a t e

t h e s e p a r a t i o n of

powers.

I T

IS THEREFORE

ORDERED

h a t

t h e

e f f e c t i v e

d a t e of h e C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n

and

judgment n MCIA I s

POSTPONED

o August 31, 2016. On h a t d a t e ,

t h e

h o l d i n g s of

4


5/11

t h i s C o u r t ' s

Opinion s h a l l b e c o m e f u l l y i n

e f f e c t

f o r

a l l

p u r p o s e s .

We

e c l i n e t o r e t a i n

j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h i s m a t t e r ,

b u t

hereby

AMEND ur February 25,

2016 Opinion

w i t h t h i s

O r d e r .

IT

IS

FURTHERORDERED

h a t ,

i n

a l l

o t h e r

r e s p e c t s ,

t h e

P e t i t i o n

f o r

R e h e a r i n g

i s DENIED.

The

C l e r k

of h i s

Court

s h e r e b y

d i r e c t e d

t o i s s u e

r e m i t t i t u r and

t o g i v e

immediate

n o t i c e of

t h i s Order t o a l l c o u n s e l of r e c o r d

and

t o

t h e

D i r e c t o r

of t h e

Department

of

P u b l i c H e a l t h

and Human e r v i c e s .

Dated t h i s _ _ Z . 5 day of p r i l , 2016.

Chief

u s t i c e

u s t i c e s

i s t r i c t

Court

Judge Robert G . Olson

s i t t i n g

f o r

J u s t i c e

P a t r i c i a

C o t t e r

5


6/11

J u s t i c e

Jim R i c e , c o n c u r r i n g .

I concur

w i t h t h e

C o u r t ' s d e n i a l of h e

P e t i t i o n

f o r Rehearing

and

i n

postponement

of

t h e

e f f e c t i v e

d a t e

of

our

d e c i s i o n u n t i l August 31,

2016. My

o n c u r r e n c e w i t h t h e

postponement s n o t based upon t h e

impact of h e d e c i s i o n

upon

medical m a r i j u a n a u s e r s

o r

p r o v i d e r s ,

b e c a u s e ,

i r s t ,

t h e

l e g i s l a t u r e ' s i n t e n t i n

t h i s

r e g a r d

has

been e v i d e n t

f o r f i v e

y e a r s , and,

s e c o n d , I

b e l i e v e

a m e l i o r a t i o n

of t h e impact of

l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t

h a s been

d e c l a r e d


i s an

i n a p p r o p r i a t e c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r t h e j u d i c i a r y

under


s e p a r a t i o n of powers.

R a t h e r ,

t h i s

i s

a

m a t t e r

f o r

t h e

l e g i s l a t i v e

and

e x e c u t i v e

b r a n c h e s . We

postponed t h e

e f f e c t i v e d a t e s

of

our

d e c i s i o n

i n

Helena

Elementary

and Lee

b u t ,

a s t h e

Court

n o t e s , t h e

l e g i s l a t i o n a t

i s s u e

i n

t h o s e

c a s e s had

been s t r u c k down and

f u r t h e r l e g a l

p r o c e s s e s

r e r n a i n e d t o

b e

compl et ed—by

t h e

l e g i s l a t u r e , i n

r e s p o n s e

t o

t h e C o u r t ' s

s t r i k i n g

down

of

h e

l e g i s l a t i o n ; b y t h e e x e c u t i v e ,

i n

implementing n e w l e g i s l a t i o n ; and

b y t h e j u d i c i a r y ,

which

r e t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o

o v e r s e e

t h e

l e g i s l a t u r e ' s

r e s p o n s e . I n r e a l i t y ,

t h e

s u b s t a n c e

of

our

d e c i s i o n s

i n

t h o s e

c a s e s

i r n m e d i a t e l y changed

t h e

law of h e S t a t e and r e q u i r e d

c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n , b u t we

gave

time f o r

t h e

o t h e r b r a n c h e s t o t a k e

t h a t

r e s p o n s i v e a c t i o n .

While

t h e

d e c i s i o n i n t h i s c a s e

s u b s t a n t i a l l y

upholds

t h e

l e g i s l a t i o n , our p r e c e d e n t

a l s o

i n d i c a t e s t h a t we

o n s i d e r e d t h e l e g i t i r n a t e need

of

h e

e x e c u t i v e branch t o

p r e p a r e

f o r


e g i s l a t i o n . See Helena

Elementary

S c h .

D i s t . No. 1

v .

S t a t e ,

23 6

Mont.

44,

784 P.2d

412,

4 1 3

(Supplemental

Opinion)

t h e

Court

p o s s e s s e s t h e e q u i t a b l e

pow er

t o

p o s t p o n e t h e e f f e c t

of t s

o p i n i o n

t o

a l l o w

t h e

l e g i s l a t u r e and

t h e g o v e r n o r ' s

6


7/11

o f f i c e t i m e

t o

implement a

s a t i s f a c t o r y

system of

c h o o l

f u n d i n g i n t h i s S t at e . ) . Here,

h e

S t a t e s u g g e s t s a 49-day

t r a n s i t i o n p e r i o d ,

w h i l e t h e

implementing

agency

h a s

a l s o

s u b m i t t e d an a f f i d a v i t

a v e r r i n g i t cannot be p r e p a r e d

f o r

f o u r

months.

Given t h e

magnitude

of h e

t a s k

of m p l e m e n t a t i o n upon t h e e x e c u t i v e

branch moving f o r w a r d , I

b e l i e v e a

f o u r r n o n t h t r a n s i t i o n p e r i o d i s

a p p r o p r i a t e

and

i s

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y

grounded.

, 9

7

J u s t i c e


8/11

J u s t i c e

Michael E heat,

i s s e n t i n g .

For t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d i n my d i s s e n t i n g

o p i n i o n , I

would

g r a n t t h e

p e t i t i o n

f o r

r e h e a r i n g .

I n t h e

absence

of

a

m a j o r i t y

v o t e

t o g r a n t r e h e a r i n g ,

I

would

d e l a y t h e

e f f e c t i v e d a t e

of h e C o u r t ' s

Opinion

u n t i l t h e

c o n c l u s i o n

of

h e

2017

l e g i s l a t i v e s e s s i o n

a s

r e q u e s t e d by t h e P l a i n t i f f s .

8


9/11

J u s t i c e

L a u r i e

McKinnon, o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t

and

d i s s e n t i n g

i n p a r t .

I concur

w i t h t h e C o u r t ' s

d e n i a l of h e

P e t i t i o n f o r

R e h e a r i n g ,

b u t d i s s e n t

from

t h e

g r a n t i n g of a

s t a y of h e judgment.

My

e c i s i o n

i s

m a d e

a s

a

u r i s t ,

charged n o t o n l y w i t h

t h e

o b l i g a t i o n

of

e s p e c t i n g

t h e

s e p a r a t i o n

of pow ers between

t h e

e x e c u t i v e ,

l e g i s l a t i v e , and j u d i c i a l

b r a n c h e s

of

government,

b u t

a l s o

a s

a m e m b e r of h e branch of government which

u l t i m a t e l y

must

d e t e r m i n e whether t h e r e

h a s been a

t r a n s g r e s s i o n of

t h i s

fundamental

and s a l u t a r y

p r i n c i p l e . M a r b u r y v .

Madison, 5

U.S. 137, 177(1803) I t

i s

e m p h a t i c a l l y t h e

p r o v i n c e

and

d u t y

of

h e

j u d i c i a l department t o say what

t h e

law

i s . ) .

My n d i v i d u a l view a s a

Montana

c i t i z e n , r e g a r d i n g t h e u s e of m e d i c a l

m a r i j u a n a f o r t h e t r e a t m e n t of a s e v e r e l y

d e b i l i t a t i n g m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n , has no p l a c e i n our

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l system

of

government

when

I

f u n c t i o n

e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h i n t h e s p h e r e of t h e

j u d i c i a l

b r a n c h . Under

t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s

h e r e , we have no c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y

t o

f u r t h e r

e n j o i n o r o t h e r w i s e

p r o h i b i t

t h e

enforcement

of

h e

Act

once we ave concluded t h a t t h e

Act

s

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .

The C o u r t ' s s t a y i s i n

d i r e c t c o n f l i c t

w i t h t h e

L e g i s l a t u r e ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n r e g a r d i n g

t h e

a p p r o p r i a t e time

f o r

t r a n s i t i o n

and e n j o i n s a l e g i s l a t i v e measure which we

i m u l t a n e o u s l y

d e t e r m i n e

t o

be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .

A

v a l i d

and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

s t a t u t e i s e n t i t l e d t o j u d i c i a l r e c o g n i t i o n . Such

r e c o g n i t i o n m a y n o t be

w i t h h e l d o r a b r i d g e d b e c a u s e t h i s Court i s

of

h e

o p i n i o n t h a t a

d e l a y

i n i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of

h e

s t a t u t e

i s

n e c e s s a r y

and

w i s e r p o l i c y .

F u r t h e r , t

i s

of

no

d i s t i n c t i o n whether t h e d e l a y

we hoose t o impose

i s merely one day, f o u r

months,

o r

e i g h t e e n months. The Court

would be w e l l - r e m i n d e d

t h a t :

J u d i c i a l p ow e r

a s

c o n t r a - d i s t i n g u i s h e d from t h e power of t h e law

has no

e x i s t e n c e . J u d i c i a l

p ow e r

i s

e x e r c i s e d

b y means of

c o u r t s

which

a r e

t h e

m e r e

c r e a t i o n s

and

i n s t r u m e n t s of h e law, and

independent of

h e law

t h e

c o u r t s have

no

e x i s t e n c e .

The

law

p r e c e d e s

t h e

c o u r t s .

The law

governs

t h e c o u r t s . Thus t

i s

t h e f u n c t i o n

of h e c o u r t s

t o e xpo und and

a d m i n i s t e r

law

i n t h o s e

c a u s e s p r o p e r l y b r o u g h t

b e f o r e them

i n

c o u r s e of

l e g a l

p r o c e d u r e .

9


10/11

J u d i c i a l

p ow e r i s

never e x e r c i s e d f o r t h e purpose of i v i n g e f f e c t

t o

t h e

w i l l

of

h e

judge [or j u s t i c e s ] . I t i s

always

e x e r c i s e d

f o r t h e purpose of g i v i n g

e f f e c t

t o t h e w i l l of

h e

p e o p l e a s t h a t w i l l i s

e x p r e s s e d

i n

t h e

law.

S t a t e ex r e l . Perry v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 145

Mont. 287, 298,

4 0 0 P.2d 648,

6 5 3

(1965)

( q u o t i n g S t a t e ex r e l . Bennett . Bonner, Governor, 123 Mont.

414,

214 P.2d 747(1950))

(emphasis

i n o r i g i n a l ) .

I n

c o n s i d e r i n g P l a i n t i f f s '

P e t i t i o n

f o r R e h e a r i n g , we

have c o n s i d e r e d

an

a f f i d a v i t

from Roy Kem p, a w i t n e s s f o r P l a i n t i f f s i n

t h e

t r i a l

c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s

and an i n t e r i m

a d m i n i s t r a t o r

f o r a

s t a t e

agency.

M r . Kemp

s n o t t h e a u t h o r i z e d

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e

of h e

e x e c u t i v e b r a n c h ' s

p o s i t i o n

r e g a r d i n g

t h e

s t a y ; t h e

A t t o r n e y

G e n e r a l ' s

O f f i c e i s .

On

b e h a l f of h e e x e c u t i v e

b r a n c h ,

t h e S t a t e and Gov ernor—as

r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e

A t t o r n e y

G e n e r a l ' s O f f i c e

has

o b j e c t e d t o

any s t a y

beyond

t h a t

a u t h o r i z e d b y t h e L e g i s l a t u r e

i n

t h e

A c t .

2

O u r

w i l l i n g n e s s

t o

c o n s i d e r

t h i s

e x t r a - r e c o r d a f f i d a v i t i n

t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e

and,

s e c o n d l y , a t t r i b u t e t o i t t h e

s t a t u s

of

s t a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i s n o t based on any law,

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n ,

o r r e c o g n i z a b l e l e g a l p r o c e d u r e . I t i s

merely

a

v e h i c l e upon

which

t h e

Court

may

e f f e c t u a t e what i t

b e l i e v e s

t o be a wise p o l i c y . The

C o u r t ' s

d e c i s i o n

i s

n o t a u t h o r i z e d b y

M. . App. P. 20, and we ave f a i l e d t o i n d i c a t e p u r s u a n t t o

what p r o c e d u r e o r

a u t h o r i t y

we r e f u n c t i o n i n g wh e n we t a y a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

s t a t u t e b y

p o s t p o n i n g f o r

f o u r

months

h e d a t e of

our d e c i s i o n .

Although t h e Court r e l i e s upon Helena Elementary and Lee, such

r e l i a n c e i s a

d i s t o r t i o n and m i s p l a c e d . None of t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s

t h a t t h e Court

c i t e d

i n Helena

Elementary and

Lee

as

p r o v i d i n g a

b a s i s t o

postpone t h e e f f e c t i v e

d a t e of h e d e c i s i o n

a r e

p r e s e n t h e r e : no

f u r t h e r a c t i o n b y

t h e

L e g i s l a t u r e

i s

r e q u i r e d ,

a s t h e Act

h a s

been

s u b s t a n t i a l l y

u p h e l d , and no f u r t h e r a c t i o n b y t h e

J u d i c i a r y i s r e q u i r e d ,

a s

n o t h i n g

r e m a i n s

t o

e i t h e r

r u l e

upon

o r

t o

r e t a i n

f o r

r e v i e w .

The

only remaining

a c t i o n

i s

The

a t t o r n e y

g e n e r a l i s

t h e

l e g a l o f f i c e r of

h e

s t a t e

and s h a l l h a v e t h e d u t i e s

a n d p o w e r s

p r o v i d e d by

l a w .

Mont. o n s t . r t . V I , § 4 .

2

he

Montana D e p a r t m e n t

of

H e a l t h a n d

Human S e r v i c e s , Q u a l i t y

A s s u r a n c e D i v i s i o n

of

w h i c h Roy

K e m p

i s

I n t e r i m

A d m i n i s t r a t o r i s a s

d e p a r t m e n t u n d e r t h e

s u p e r v i s i o n of t h e

e x e c u t i v e .

Mont. o n s t . r t .

V I ,

§

8 .

1 0


11/11

enforcement of h e Act b y

t h e e x e c u t i v e . No e g a l a c t i o n

r e l a t e d

t o

t h e

v a l i d i t y

of

h e

Ac t

r e m a i n s t o be t a k e n b y any branch of government; s a

m a t t e r of law, h e c a s e i s o v e r .

F i n d i n g t h e

Act

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ,

b u t n e v e r t h e l e s s p o s t p o n i n g t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of

o u r

d e c i s i o n i n o r d e r

t o

e f f e c t u a t e a s t a y

and

implement what

we e l i e v e

t o

be a w i s e

p o l i c y , undermines t h e

fundamental p r i n c i p l e of o - o r d i n a t e b r a n c h e s of

government,

n o t

t o mention

i s i n v e n t i v e , u n p r e c e d e n t e d ,

and l e s s

t h a n

s t r a i g h t

f o r w a r d . T h i s i s

p a r t i c u l a r l y so wh e n t h e L e g i s l a t u r e h a s

c o n s i d e r e d

and a d o p t e d

a t r a n s i t i o n p e r i o d and

t h e e x e c u t i v e

branch has

chosen

t o e n f o r c e i t s p r o v i s i o n s . I n d e e d , t i s our

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

a s t h e h i g h e s t

c o u r t

of

h i s

S t a t e

t o

p r o t e c t

a g a i n s t

an encr oachment of

powe r between t h e

t h r e e b r a n c h e s of

government, e t a l o n e commit such a r a n s g r e s s i o n o u r s e l v e s .

Although

w e

a s

i n d i v i d u a l s

m a y

f e e l

p a s s i o n a t e l y

o t h e r w i s e , we

must

be

r e l u c t a n t

t o

c r e a t e

o r

a n n u l b y

u d i c i a l

s e n t e n c e what t h e L e g i s l a t u r e

has

a p p r o p r i a t e l y d e c i d e d

and

t h a t

which

t h e

e x e c u t i v e

h a s

a p p r o p r i a t e l y

chosen

t o e n f o r c e .

I would

d en y t h e p e t i t i o n and

r e q u e s t

f o r a

s t a y .

1 1

MT Supreme Court Delay Enforcement on Medical Marijuana

Documents