Recently, Judge Chaffee of the Orange County, California, Superior Court ruled in what has become one of the most watched medical marijuana cases in California. The ruling in Qualified Patients’ Association v. City of Anaheim comes after years of contentious legal sparing, and the involvement of the state’s appellate court.

For those of you not familiar with the background of the case, here’s a quick recap:

California became the first state to legalize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes in 1996.  This was accomplished through Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act (“CUA”), which won a majority of the public vote, and paved the way for thirteen other states to enact similar laws.  The CUA was codified as Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 and was created to, among other things, “ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medicinal purposes ” and “to ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana . . . are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.”

As you can imagine, the CUA caused mass chaos as law enforcement agencies and local governments grappled with the inherent vagueness of the law.  As a result of this chaos, in 2004, the California Legislature introduced and enacted Senate Bill 420 (clever, right?) in an effort to solve the many problems created by the CUA.  The bill, titled the Medical Marijuana Protection Act (“MMPA”), had the expressed intention of solving the problems created by the CUA, and in some respects succeeded.  First, the bill defined key terms, which had become controversial following the passage of the CUA.  This included defining what constituted an illness justifying the prescription of marijuana, and who could be considered a patient.  Next, the MMPA tackled criminal liability by limiting the criminal liability of a qualified patient.  Since then, a statewide ID card system has been created in order to easily and quickly establish who is legally entitled to possess marijuana, and, multiple studies have shown that there are now more dispensaries in Los Angeles than there are Starbucks.

Just as the whole state seemed poised to collectively and figuratively “light up,” the City of Anaheim decided it didn’t like California’s new found acceptance of that pesky weed, and passed Ordinance 6067, which, at its core went against the CUA and the MMPA.  Ordinance 6067 not only labeled medical marijuana dispensaries a nuisance, but also criminalized them.  Section 5 of 6067 states, “ . . . any person who violates any provision of this ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished [by a fine of up to one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months].”

Now, like some of you, I thought this was awfully bold, considering California had just passed laws stating that medical marijuana users were to be exempted from criminal prosecution.  Perhaps the term “preemption” came to mind. The over-simplified definition of the doctrine of preemption is that “local legislation in conflict with general law is void.”  This derives directly from the very text of California’s Constitution, Article 11, § 7, which reads: “A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.”  Nevertheless, this does not truly engage the whole picture; a conflict arises if the local ordinance “duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general law.”

I don’t think I have to tell you that in response, naturally, a group of medical marijuana dispensaries in Anaheim sued the city, arguing preemption, and after a few trips on writ to the appellate court, this matter was finally ruled on by Judge Caffee.

So here we are.

Expectations were fairly high on both sides of the issue, and I must say, Judge Caffee did not disappoint.  His relatively thorough five-page ruling took a surprising twist.  If you’re waiting to read the opinion yourself because you’re totally enthralled by the issues, then consider this your spoiler alert.  Judge Caffee actually invalidated the portion of Ordinance 6067, which criminalized medical marijuana dispensaries, severed that clause, and left the remaining portion of the Ordinance intact.  Whoa.  Did not see that coming.  So, in a nutshell, you still can’t have dispensaries in Anaheim because the city is entitled to regulate them into oblivion under its nuisance powers, but, if you open one, you cannot be found criminally liable.  Um, okay.  That’s interesting.  Actually, that might be brilliant.

Obviously, the decision will be appealed as the medical marijuana dispensaries seek to have the entirety of the ordinance stricken.  The outcome of that appeal will be closely watched, and I don’t know that I’m willing to venture a guess how it will turn out.  It seems to me that the outcome rests on the balancing of intent and substance.  No, at a technical level there is no literal indication in the CUA or the MMPA that the Legislature sought to keep local municipalities from exercising their normal police powers over dispensaries.  Yet, it seems difficult to escape the reality that the Legislature intended to “promote uniform and consistent application of the [MMPA] among the counties and the states.”  Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.7 (2004) (legislative notes).

So does the MMPA and the CUA preempt local ordinances like 6067?  Thus far the answer is “only as to criminal liability.”  We’ll see how true that is as the case makes its way through the appellate process.