Michigan Rep. Jay DeBoyer filed House Bill 6440 last week, proposing a one-year suspension of the state’s 24% wholesale adult-use cannabis tax. If the bill becomes law, the suspension would begin on the effective date of the amendment and run for 12 months.

That’s the entire scope of the bill. It doesn’t touch Michigan’s 10% retail excise tax, and it leaves the standard 6% sales tax exactly where it is. Both of those remain in effect for anyone buying cannabis at a licensed dispensary, suspension or no suspension. HB 6440 is narrowly written to hit one specific line item: the wholesale levy charged when cannabis moves from a cultivator or processor to a retailer.

What Would Change, and What Wouldn’t, Under HB 6440?

The difference between a temporary pause and a repeal sounds like a technicality, but it carries weight for Michigan’s cannabis operators.

A pause, which is what HB 6440 proposes, means the 24% wholesale tax would stop being collected for one year starting on the amendment’s effective date, assuming the bill is signed into law. The statute authorizing the tax would stay on the books the entire time. Once the year ends, the wholesale tax would automatically snap back to 24% unless lawmakers took further action to extend the suspension or get rid of the tax entirely. Nothing in HB 6440, as introduced, builds in a second suspension or a path to permanent relief.

A repeal works differently. It would remove the tax from Michigan law for good, the way Senate Bill 810 was written to do when State Senator Jonathan Lindsey introduced it back in February. Once a tax is repealed, it doesn’t come back without lawmakers passing brand-new legislation to reinstate it.

There’s also the litigation angle to consider. A one-year pause wouldn’t resolve the constitutional questions currently working through Michigan’s Court of Claims. Those lawsuits challenge the tax on separate legal grounds, and nothing in HB 6440 would moot or settle that litigation. Even if the suspension passed, the underlying legal fight over whether the tax violates the Michigan Constitution would keep moving forward on its own timeline.

Why Did Rep. DeBoyer Introduce This Bill Now?

HB 6440 arrives after months of back-and-forth over how much money the wholesale tax actually generates versus how much lawmakers projected it would bring in when they passed it as part of the Comprehensive Road Funding Tax Act in 2025.

Earlier we reported that the tax, which took effect January 1, 2026, collected close to $34 million in its first quarter, well under the roughly $105 million per quarter that the nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency had estimated. The original full-year projection for the tax, cited by Bridge Michigan when lawmakers passed it, was around $420 million.

Legal cannabis sales have also come in lower than the previous year every month since the tax began, according to Cannabis Regulatory Agency figures. Industry groups like the Michigan Cannabis Industry Association have argued for months that a nearly 40% combined tax burden, once the wholesale tax stacks on top of the retail excise tax and sales tax, pushes buyers toward the unregulated market instead of licensed dispensaries.

DeBoyer’s bill doesn’t claim to settle the revenue debate. But it gives lawmakers a concrete, time-limited alternative to either defending the current rate or backing a full repeal, which is a different kind of political lift entirely. A one-year pause lets the state see what happens to sales and tax collections without the wholesale levy in place, before deciding whether to let it return, extend the suspension, or revisit the policy altogether.

What Has the Legal Fight Over the Wholesale Tax Looked Like So Far?

Michigan’s wholesale cannabis tax has been contested in court since before it even took effect. The Michigan Cannabis Industry Association filed its first lawsuit in October 2025, the same day Governor Whitmer signed the tax into law, arguing lawmakers amended a voter-approved law, the 2018 Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act, without the three-fourths legislative supermajority the state constitution requires for that kind of change.

A Court of Claims judge denied a request to block the tax from taking effect, and it went live on January 1, 2026, as WLNS reported at the time. That didn’t end the legal fight. In March 2026, the MCIA and several operators filed a second lawsuit, this one arguing the wholesale tax functions like a disguised sales tax and creates unconstitutional “tax pyramiding,” pushing the effective sales tax rate above the 6% cap written into the Michigan Constitution.

“A tax levied on a tax results in an unconstitutional over-taxation of Michiganders,” MCIA’s Rose Tantraphol told Interlochen Public Radio when the second suit was filed. An appeals court later denied a request to bypass lower courts and fast-track the case, according to WKAR.

That litigation is still pending. HB 6440 doesn’t reference it, and a one-year suspension of the tax wouldn’t resolve the constitutional questions the courts are weighing. Whatever happens with DeBoyer’s bill, the lawsuits proceed on a separate track entirely, which means Michigan’s cannabis tax situation could keep shifting on multiple fronts at once.

What Happens Next for Michigan’s Cannabis Tax Fight

House Bill 6440 is still in its earliest stage. Committee members now have the bill, but they haven’t announced a hearing date, named any co-sponsors, or set a timeline for a floor vote. Whether it moves at all may depend on how much pressure continues to build from operators, trade groups, and the ongoing litigation over the tax’s legality.

For now, nothing has changed with the 24% wholesale tax. The government still collects it, and challengers are still fighting it in court. HB 6440 offers lawmakers a narrower, less politically risky option than Senate Bill 810’s full repeal, but it’s worth remembering that a pause is just that. Unless Michigan legislators take further action before the year is up, the tax returns automatically at the same 24% rate.

Anyone running a cultivation, processing, or retail operation in Michigan has reason to watch this bill closely, but also reason to keep an eye on the courts. We here at Beard Bros Media will continue following both as they develop.

Frequently Asked Questions