Forest City Residential Management v. Beasley, December 2014.
In one of the first major cases relating to whether the use of medically prescribed marijuana must be permitted as a reasonable accommodation, a Michigan district court has ruled that such an accommodation need not be made.
Facts of the Case: A Section 8 resident with multiple sclerosis (MS) was prescribed medical marijuana by her doctor. She obtained a medical marijuana card from the State of Michigan under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act. The resident requested, as a reasonable accommodation, that she be allowed to use medically prescribed marijuana in her unit. The owner of the property refused the request and the case went to court. The management company asked the court to declare that the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) preempts the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA) and that approval of the use of medical marijuana would not be reasonable.
Ruling: Michigan district court ruled that the CSA does preempt the MMMA, and that the FHA does not require a reasonable accommodation is such cases.
Reasoning: The court ruled that it is impossible to ingest marijuana in any form – medical or otherwise – without violating the CSA. The CSA provides for no exclusion for “medical” marijuana, and that since Congress considers marijuana to be a Schedule I drug, it has no medical purpose under federal law. Because a state law is “without effect” when it conflicts with federal law, the court ruled that the CSA preempts the MMMA.
The court ruled that permitting the use of medical marijuana would fundamentally alter the nature of the site’s operations by requiring the company to violate federal law; thus, it would not constitute a reasonable accommodation.
This is an important decision in states that permit medically prescribed marijuana since it establishes a precedent for apartment owners and managers relative to whether the use of medically prescribed marijuana must be permitted under state law as a reasonable accommodation.
When state law and federal law conflict, federal law displaces, or preempts, state law, due to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI, §2). Preemption applies regardless of whether the conflicting laws come from legislatures, courts, administrative agencies, or constitutions. For example, the Voting Rights Act, an act of Congress, preempts state constitutions, and FDA regulations may preempt state court judgments in cases involving prescription drugs.
Congress has preempted state regulation in many areas. In some cases, such as medical devices, Congress has preempted all state regulation. In others, such as labels on prescription drugs, Congress allows federal regulatory agencies to set national minimum standards, but does not preempt state regulations imposing more stringent standards than those imposed by federal regulators. The same applies for the low-income housing tax credit program, where Congress has stated that the HUD Section 8 program sets the minimum standard for tenant eligibility, but has not precluded states from setting more stringent standards for their purposes.
Where rules or regulations do not clearly state whether or not preemption should apply, the Supreme Court tries to follow lawmakers’ intent, and prefers not to preempt state laws.
In the case of marijuana use, the intent of Congress appears clear that no use of marijuana is legal. In this case, federal law clearly preempts any contrary state law, and it would appear that owners are on firm legal ground if they refuse to allow the use of medical marijuana as a reasonable accommodation. Keep in mind that this does not mean that owners may not permit the use of medical marijuana – only that they do not have to.