mt supreme court delay enforcement on medical marijuana
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
-
8/18/2019 MT Supreme Court Delay Enforcement on Medical Marijuana
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
-
8/18/2019 MT Supreme Court Delay Enforcement on Medical Marijuana
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
-
8/18/2019 MT Supreme Court Delay Enforcement on Medical Marijuana
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
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of
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
-
8/18/2019 MT Supreme Court Delay Enforcement on Medical Marijuana
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
-
8/18/2019 MT Supreme Court Delay Enforcement on Medical Marijuana
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
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
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
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
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
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of
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
-
8/18/2019 MT Supreme Court Delay Enforcement on Medical Marijuana
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
-
8/18/2019 MT Supreme Court Delay Enforcement on Medical Marijuana
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
-
8/18/2019 MT Supreme Court Delay Enforcement on Medical Marijuana
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
-
8/18/2019 MT Supreme Court Delay Enforcement on Medical Marijuana
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
-
8/18/2019 MT Supreme Court Delay Enforcement on Medical Marijuana
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