![BeardBros_BlogImages [Recovered]](https://beardbrospharms.com/nitropack_static/RCNgEUuNfbSzjncmtWVIKouiPxxiciqp/assets/images/optimized/rev-deecc7b/beardbrospharms.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/BeardBros_BlogImages-Recovered-scaled.png)
Key Takeaways
- The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that state courts cannot prohibit MRTMA-compliant cannabis use for adults on probation, even if it conflicts with federal law.
- This decision stems from the case of Danielle Hess, who violated probation terms prohibiting marijuana use despite it being legal under state law.
- The court clarified that cannabis restrictions during probation must be tailored to individual circumstances and cannot apply universally.
- This ruling reinforces that Michigan cannabis probation rights are protected under the MRTMA, regardless of federal prohibition.
- The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the intent of Michigan voters to legalize cannabis for adults 21 and older, even during probation.
NORTH AMERICA, MICHIGAN – On Monday July 6th, the Michigan Supreme Court unanimously ruled in People v. Hess that state trial courts cannot prohibit MRTMA-compliant cannabis use solely because it violates federal law. The Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act supersedes the state’s probation act, protecting the cannabis rights of adults 21 and older who are serving probation in state court.
This ruling carries real weight for anyone in Michigan serving probation for a non-marijuana-related offense. Under Michigan’s Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), which voters passed in 2018, recreational cannabis is legal for adults 21 and older. The Supreme Court confirmed that this legal protection holds, even for those on probation.
Here is everything you need to know about the case, what the court decided, and what it means going forward.
Who Is Danielle Hess and How Did This Case Start?
The case centers on Danielle Heaven-Leah Hess, a Michigan resident who pleaded guilty in to one count of third-degree retail fraud after stealing clothing from a Meijer store. She was sentenced to 12 months of probation under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA).
As part of her probation terms, the 64B District Court prohibited Hess from using or possessing marijuana and required her to submit to regular drug screenings. No specific reasoning was given for the cannabis prohibition.
During her probation, Hess tested positive for marijuana twice in 2022, leading to two separate probation violations. After the second violation, she asked the district court to amend her probation terms to allow MRTMA-compliant cannabis use, vacate the first violation, and dismiss the second. The court rejected her motion, found her guilty of a probation violation, revoked her HYTA status, and sentenced her to 10 days in jail.
How Did the Lower Courts Rule Before the Supreme Court Stepped In?
The Montcalm Circuit Court stayed Hess’s jail sentence but otherwise upheld the district court’s decision. When Hess appealed further, the Michigan Court of Appeals also affirmed the lower court’s ruling in a published opinion on October 2024.
The Court of Appeals based its decision on MCL 771.3(1)(a) of the Michigan probation act, which requires probationers to not violate any criminal law of the United States. Because recreational cannabis remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the panel concluded that courts must prohibit cannabis use as a mandatory probation condition.
That reasoning would ultimately not hold up. Hess applied to the Michigan Supreme Court for leave to appeal, and the Supreme Court granted the application.
What Did the Michigan Supreme Court Unanimously Rule in People v. Hess?
The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Elizabeth M. Welch, with all seven justices in agreement.
Justice Welch wrote clearly: “The MRTMA provides that MRTMA-compliant use of marijuana shall not be grounds for arrest, prosecution, penalty, search, or the denial of any right or privilege. And when the MRTMA conflicts with state laws, including the probation act, the MRTMA controls.”
The court held that a trial court cannot prohibit MRTMA-compliant cannabis use as a probation condition solely because that use violates federal law. The case was remanded back to the trial court with instructions to reconsider Hess’s motion, vacate her first probation violation, and dismiss the second.
Why Does Federal Law Not Override Michigan’s Cannabis Rights?
This is the legal heart of the case. The Court of Appeals had relied on the fact that federal law still bans recreational marijuana under the CSA. Justice Welch and the full court found that reasoning flawed.
The Supreme Court pointed to its own 2014 decision in Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, which established that the federal CSA does not preempt Michigan’s Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA). In Ter Beek, the court ruled that the MMMA provides Michiganders with state-law immunity from arrest and prosecution, an immunity that doesn’t attempt to override or interfere with federal law. It simply operates on a parallel state track.
The same logic applies to the MRTMA. The MRTMA does not claim to legalize cannabis at the federal level. It grants state-level immunity. Federal authorities still have the legal right to enforce the CSA if they choose. Michigan’s state courts, however, cannot use federal law as a reason to punish people for conduct the state has explicitly legalized.
It’s also worth noting that in April earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Justice reclassified FDA-approved marijuana products and state-licensed medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III controlled substances. That shift, while not determinative in this case, signals movement away from strict federal prohibition.
What Does This Ruling Mean for Cannabis Users on Probation in Michigan?
For adults 21 and older serving state-level probation, this ruling means courts can no longer issue a blanket ban on cannabis use simply because federal law prohibits it. That default prohibition is gone.
Montcalm County Prosecutor Thomas Ginster, who argued the state’s case, noted that courts can still potentially restrict cannabis use as a discretionary probation condition, but only if that restriction is individually tailored to the specific probationer’s assessed risks and needs, as required by MCL 771.3(11). A judge cannot simply apply a one-size-fits-all cannabis ban without a particularized, legal reason.
This is a meaningful distinction. The days of courts reflexively adding cannabis restrictions to probation orders because of a federal law Michigan voters explicitly chose not to follow are over.
What Did the Supreme Court Leave Unanswered?
The ruling is a significant win, but it is not unlimited. The court was deliberate about what it did not decide.
Justices left open the question of whether and under what circumstances a trial court may still prohibit MRTMA-compliant cannabis use as a discretionary probation condition when the restriction is genuinely tailored to the individual. Because the Court of Appeals never reached that issue, the Supreme Court chose not to address it here. That question will likely come before the courts in future cases.
The ruling also does not apply to federal probation. Hess’s case involved a state court sentence, and Justice Welch was explicit that probation handed down in federal court remains governed by federal law.
Why This Ruling Is a Milestone for Michigan Cannabis Rights
This decision is about more than one person’s probation terms. It clarifies that Michigan voters meant what they said in 2018 when they passed the MRTMA. Legal cannabis for adults 21 and older is a right under state law, and that right does not disappear the moment a person is placed on probation for an unrelated offense.
For years, lower courts had been using federal cannabis prohibition as a convenient tool to restrict lawful behavior. The Supreme Court closed that door. As Justice Welch’s opinion makes clear, the MRTMA instructs courts to interpret the act “to the fullest extent possible” in accordance with its stated purpose: preventing arrest and penalty for lawful cannabis use.
That’s a direct, unambiguous mandate from Michigan voters. The court followed it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Following People v. Hess, courts in Michigan can only restrict cannabis use during probation if the restriction is tailored to the individual’s specific risks and needs. A blanket prohibition for all probationers is no longer legally valid under state law.
The ruling only applies to state-level probation sentences and does not affect federal court probation, which continues to be governed by the federal Controlled Substances Act, as explicitly noted by Justice Elizabeth Welch.
The MRTMA legally protects adults 21 and older who purchase, possess, or consume cannabis in Michigan, provided they stay within the law’s strict limits.
The court applied the Ter Beek framework to rule that the federal CSA does not preempt Michigan’s cannabis laws, as these laws offer state-level immunity without blocking federal enforcement. Additionally, under state law, the MRTMA overrides any conflicting provisions in the probation act.
