Michigan Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Warren marijuana case

The Michigan Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday morning in a case alleging Warren’s Marijuana Review Committee violated the state Open Meetings Act multiple times.

Plaintiffs in the case, Pinebrook LLC et. al. vs. City of Warren and Livwell Michigan LLC et, al., are businesses that applied for but were not granted medical marijuana dispensary licenses in Warren. In a lawsuit filed in 2019, the plaintiffs alleged that the city’s Marijuana Review Committee held 16 closed meetings in violation of the Open Meetings Act and violated due process.

The Marijuana Review Committee members were former councilpersons Cecil St. Pierre Jr., Steven Warner and Ronald Papandrea as well as former city attorney Ethan Vinson and then public service director Richard Sabaugh.

The Warren Marijuana Review Committee received, reviewed and scored more than 60 applications for medical marijuana licenses and made recommendations to Warren City Council as to which 15 applicants should receive licenses. The Marijuana Review Committee did not receive public comment or disclose how it arrived at its recommendations.

The Warren City Council held a public meeting within 24 hours of receiving recommendations from the subcommittee and voted 5-2 to award licenses to the 15 businesses the subcommittee recommended. Former councilpersons Kelly Colegio and Scott Stevens voted against awarding the licenses saying they did not have access to information about applicants that was allegedly discussed and reviewed during the 16 closed meetings held by the committee.

Carl Marlinga, former Macomb County Circuit Court judge, ruled the committee did violate the OMA and invalidated the licenses issued. The 15 licensed companies became intervenors and filed motions for reconsideration that were denied by the Circuit Court.

In 2022, the Michigan State Court of Appeals reversed that decision stating that the Marijuana Review Committee was not subject to the OMA because it was “not a governing body.” The COA decision reinstated the original 15 licenses.

Speaking before the MSC on behalf of the plaintiffs, attorney Alan Greene argued the Marijuana Review Committee was created specifically to circumvent the OMA and said it was clearly operating as a government body.

“The whole process was meant to circumvent public scrutiny from beginning to end,” Greene said. “They created a five-member committee and appointed three City Council members, met in secret, and were engaged in policy making.”

Green urged the Court to overturn the COA decision.

“Upholding the Court of Appeals decision would result in a significant change to the Open Meetings Act law and would create a hole through which a truck could be driven,” Greene said.

“It would allow significant decisions to be made in private and outside of public scrutiny.”

Attorney Andrea Pike, representing the City of Warren, argued the marijuana review committee was an advisory board tasked with “doing the homework” for the City Council but was not performing any governmental function when it reviewed and scored the medical marijuana license applications.

“The committee was acting in an advisory role and even though three council members made up a majority of the committee, it is not a quorum so it is not a government body,” Pike said, adding the review committee functioned as is called for specifically in the city’s marijuana ordinance which states the committee is to “review provisioning center applications” and that the Court of Appeals based its decision on that language.

“The Court of Appeals ruling was based on the City of Warren marijuana ordinance so that decision would not apply to any other municipality,” Pike said.

Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement questioned if the makeup of the individual committee members or the committee’s overall function was the main issue.

“So you’re saying that anything can go on behind the scenes as long as there is no Council quorum and that a governing body can create these subcommittees to avoid the OMA and that is OK?” Clement said.

Justice Megan Cavanaugh questioned how the City Council would have made its decision regarding who should get medical marijuana licenses if it had not created the committee.

“I don’t see where the definition of a public government body says it must make a final decision to be considered a public government body,” Cavanaugh said. “If this committee did not do this, the City Council would have done it so ultimately the function of the government body is to accept and review the applications which is what this committee did.”

The MSC will consider Wednesday’s arguments and issue a decision on an unspecified date.