Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.27956 (2026)

Adoption or enforcement of ordinances by municipality; marihuana establishment local license; annual fee; restrictions on transportation or other facilities prohibited.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN REGULATION AND TAXATION OF MARIHUANA ACT

Initiated Law 1 of 2018

333.27956 Adoption or enforcement of ordinances by municipality; marihuana establishment local license; annual fee; restrictions on transportation or other facilities prohibited.

Sec. 6.

1. Except as provided in section 4, a municipality may completely prohibit or limit the number of marihuana establishments within its boundaries. Individuals may petition to initiate an ordinance to provide for the number of marihuana establishments allowed within a municipality or to completely prohibit marihuana establishments within a municipality, and such ordinance shall be submitted to the electors of the municipality at the next regular election when a petition is signed by qualified electors in the municipality in a number greater than 5% of the votes cast for governor by qualified electors in the municipality at the last gubernatorial election. A petition under this subsection is subject to section 488 of the Michigan election law, 1954 PA 116, MCL 168.488.

2. A municipality may adopt other ordinances that are not unreasonably impracticable and do not conflict with this act or with any rule promulgated pursuant to this act and that:

(a) establish reasonable restrictions on public signs related to marihuana establishments;

(b) regulate the time, place, and manner of operation of marihuana establishments and of the production, manufacture, sale, or display of marihuana accessories;

(c) authorize the sale of marihuana for consumption in designated areas that are not accessible to persons under 21 years of age, or at special events in limited areas and for a limited time; and

(d) designate a violation of the ordinance and provide for a penalty for that violation by a marihuana establishment, provided that such violation is a civil infraction and such penalty is a civil fine of not more than $500.

3. A municipality may adopt an ordinance requiring a marihuana establishment with a physical location within the municipality to obtain a municipal license, but may not impose qualifications for licensure that conflict with this act or rules promulgated by the department.

4. A municipality may charge an annual fee of not more than $5,000 to defray application, administrative, and enforcement costs associated with the operation of the marihuana establishment in the municipality.

5. A municipality may not adopt an ordinance that restricts the transportation of marihuana through the municipality or prohibits a marihuana grower, a marihuana processor, and a marihuana retailer from operating within a single facility or from operating at a location shared with a marihuana facility operating pursuant to the medical marihuana facilities licensing act, 2016 PA 281, MCL 333.27101 to 333.27801.

History: 2018, Initiated Law 1, Eff. Dec. 6, 2018

Compiler's Notes:

This new act was proposed by initiative petition pursuant to Const. 1963, art 2, section 9. The proposed language was certified to the legislature on April 26, 2018 with the 40-day consideration period lapsing on June 5, 2018. The initiative petition was submitted to the voters as proposal 18-1 at the November 6, 2018 general election where it was approved 2,356,422 for and 1,859,675 against.

For the transfer of powers and duties of the department of licensing and regulatory affairs, including its bureau of marijuana regulation, to the marijuana regulatory agency, and abolishment of the bureau of marijuana regulation, see E.R.O. No. 2019-2, compiled at MCL 333.27001.

For the renaming of the marijuana regulatory agency to the cannabis regulatory agency, see E.R.O. No. 2022-1, compiled at MCL 333.27002.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 2021–2026 · leading case: Ypsilanti Twp. Citizens for Responsible Gov't v. Jarrell Roe (E.D. Mich. 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ypsilanti Twp. Citizens for Responsible Gov't v. Jarrell Roe (E.D. Mich. 2022). · cites it 13× “Under Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.27956 (1): Individuals may petition to initiate an ordinance to provide for the number of marihuana establishments allowed within a municipality or to completely prohibit marihuana establishments within a municipality, and such ordinance shall be…”

Exclusive Capital Partners LLC v. City of Royal Oak (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 12× “MCL 333.27956 allows a municipality to adopt a recreational marijuana ordinance.”

City of Farmington v. Farmington Survey Comm. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 11× “Specifically, central to the issues in this case is MCL 333.27956, which states: 1. Except as provided [MCL 333.”

Golden Rockies Inc v. City of Utica (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 9× “-9- (b) Pursuant to section 6 of the MRTMA, MCL 333.27956, the city shall authorize no more than two marihuana retailer licenses in the city which shall co- locate with the location of a licensed medical marihuana provisioning center.”

Blue Water Cannabis Co. LLC v. City of Westland (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 5× “The only additional basis for invalidating the criteria adopted by the City are the general limitations on the powers of municipalities set forth in MCL 333.27956, which provides, in relevant part: 2.”

Yellow Tail Ventures Inc v. City of Berkley (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “Plaintiffs next argue that MCL 333.27956 cabins a municipality’s authority to impose local regulations on a marijuana establishment.”

Attitude Wellness LLC v. City of Royal Oak (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 4× “In the event a municipality elects to limit “the number of marihuana establishments within its boundaries,” MCL 333.27956(1), as the City did here, “the municipality shall decide among competing applications by a competitive process intended to select applicants who are best…”

Attitude Wellness LLC v. Pinckney, Vill. of (E.D. Mich. 2022). · cites it 3× “LAWS § 333.27956. Municipalities that limit the number of cannabis business licenses must establish “a competitive process” to “select applicants who are best suited to operate [a cannabis business] in compliance with this act within the municipality.”

Fluresh, LLC v. Grand Rapids, City of (W.D. Mich. 2025). · cites it 3× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.27956 (1). In addition, municipalities can require such establishments to obtain a municipal license, so long as the qualifications for licensure do not conflict with the MMRTA.”

Twp. of Bear Creek v. Cannabis Regulatory Agency (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 3× “MCL 333.27956. In 1 The MRTMA uses the spelling “marihuana.”

Utopia Gardens LLC v. Marijuana Regulatory Agency (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “Under § 6 of the MRTMA, MCL 333.27956, a municipality may “opt out” of the act by enacting an ordinance prohibiting marijuana establishments within the municipality.”

Clio Yes 2024 v. Kelly Sproul (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “See MCL 333.27956(1) (providing in part that “[e]xcept as provided in [MCL 333.”

Show all 18 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.27956(1) — 12 cases

Ypsilanti Twp. Citizens for Responsible Gov't v. Jarrell Roe (E.D. Mich. 2022). “Under Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.27956 (1): Individuals may petition to initiate an ordinance to provide for the number of marihuana establishments allowed within a municipality or to completely prohibit marihuana establishments within a municipality, and such ordinance shall be…”

Clio Yes 2024 v. Kelly Sproul (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “See MCL 333.27956(1) (providing in part that “[e]xcept as provided in [MCL 333.”

20241219_C367522_30_367522D.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

Oakland Cares Coalition v. Gwendolyn Turner (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).

Leoni Wellness LLC v. Easton Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.27956(2) — 6 cases

Exclusive Capital Partners LLC v. City of Royal Oak (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “MCL 333.27956 allows a municipality to adopt a recreational marijuana ordinance.”

Attitude Wellness LLC v. City of Royal Oak (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “In the event a municipality elects to limit “the number of marihuana establishments within its boundaries,” MCL 333.27956(1), as the City did here, “the municipality shall decide among competing applications by a competitive process intended to select applicants who are best…”

Golden Rockies Inc v. City of Utica (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “-9- (b) Pursuant to section 6 of the MRTMA, MCL 333.27956, the city shall authorize no more than two marihuana retailer licenses in the city which shall co- locate with the location of a licensed medical marihuana provisioning center.”

Attitude Wellness LLC v. Pinckney, Vill. of (E.D. Mich. 2022). “LAWS § 333.27956. Municipalities that limit the number of cannabis business licenses must establish “a competitive process” to “select applicants who are best suited to operate [a cannabis business] in compliance with this act within the municipality.”

Yellow Tail Ventures Inc v. City of Berkley (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “Plaintiffs next argue that MCL 333.27956 cabins a municipality’s authority to impose local regulations on a marijuana establishment.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.27956(2)(b) — 1 case

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.27956(3) — 2 cases

Exclusive Capital Partners LLC v. City of Royal Oak (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “MCL 333.27956 allows a municipality to adopt a recreational marijuana ordinance.”

Fluresh, LLC v. Grand Rapids, City of (W.D. Mich. 2025). “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.27956 (1). In addition, municipalities can require such establishments to obtain a municipal license, so long as the qualifications for licensure do not conflict with the MMRTA.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.