Marijuana Regulatory Agency
February 17, 2020
Page 5
those who had already filed applications. More specifically, this caused specific concerns for
applicants who worked with Rep. Kesto to ensure the changes would not be retroactively
applied; this was the genesis of the language limiting the effectiveness of the change to only
applications submitted “on or after January 1, 2019.” To now include and enforce these
standards on renewal to entities that applied before January 1, 2019, would completely subvert
and undermine the Legislature’s intent in adding the January 1, 2019, language.
Additionally, to add these requirements on renewal is inconsistent with the statutory language
itself. The MMFLA, as amended, makes an express distinction between “Applicant” and
“Licensee” under the MMFLA, as amended, along with a possible argument about MRA not
properly exercising its deference when carrying out the MMFLA depending on its ultimate
position. The MMFLA has specifically defined both “Applicant” and “Licensee” and references
the various definitions based on whether the license is being applied for or whether it is being
renewed. Thus, an “Applicant” is not a “Licensee” and a “Licensee” is not an “Applicant.”
Michigan courts have continuously held that “[w]hen interpreting a statute, our primary
obligation is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature. To do so, we begin with the
language of the statute, ascertaining the intent that may be reasonably inferred from its
language.” Lash v Traverse City, 479 Mich 180, 187 (2007). “When the language of a statute is
unambiguous, the Legislature’s intent is clear and judicial construction is neither necessary nor
permitted.” Id. The Michigan Supreme Court has further held that “ambiguity is a finding of last
resort.” Stone v Williamson, 482 Mich 144, FN 21 (2008).
The MMFLA defines “applicant” as “a person who applies for a state operating license.” MCL
333. 27102(c). The statute further clarifies that applicant includes, “with respect to disclosures
in an application, for purposes of ineligibility for a license under section 402, or for purposes of
prior board approval of a transfer of interest under section 406, and only for applications
submitted on or after January 1, 2019, a managerial employee of the applicant, a person holding
a direct or indirect ownership interest of more than 10% in the applicant.” Id. The MMFLA
defines “Licensee” as “a person holding a state operating license.” MCL 333.27102(j).
MCL 333.27402 provides that “[t]he board shall issue a license to an applicant who submits a
complete application and pays both the nonrefundable application fee required under section
401(5) and the regulatory assessment established by the board for the first year of operation, if
the board determines that the applicant is qualified to receive a license under this act.” MCL
333.27402(1). Section 27402 further provides that “[a] license shall be issued for a 1-year period
and is renewable annually. Except as otherwise provided in this act, the board shall renew a
license if all of the following requirements are met: (a) The licensee applies to the board on a
renewal form provided by the board that requires information prescribed in the rules; (b) The
application is received by the board on or before the expiration date of the current license; (c)
The licensee pays the regulatory assessment under section 603; and (d) The licensee meets the
California | Illinois | Michigan | Minnesota | Texas | Washington, D.C.
071889.000098 4815-4954-6932.3