Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court dismissed an appeal concerning the City of Broken Arrow's authority to zone and regulate medical marijuana businesses. The Court held that the plaintiffs lacked an ongoing case or controversy because they had not been denied permits, charged a specific fee, prohibited from locating at a chosen site, or subjected to enforcement, making the requested relief advisory. The Court also discussed 2019 statutory amendments clarifying municipal zoning authority under Oklahoma's medical-marijuana laws.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appeal presented a justiciable case or controversy after the statutory amendments and the trial court's supplemental findings.
- Whether a court may issue declaratory relief concerning municipal medical-marijuana zoning in the absence of an actual controversy or concrete injury to the plaintiffs.
- Whether the amended medical-marijuana statute clarified that municipalities may apply standard planning and zoning procedures to marijuana-related businesses, including growing and processing facilities.
Holdings
- The appeal was dismissed because the plaintiffs had not shown a present, concrete controversy warranting judicial relief; the requested declaration would constitute an advisory opinion.
- The 2019 amendments clarified that an undue municipal zoning restriction means an act that entirely prevents retail marijuana establishments from operating within municipal boundaries and that municipalities may follow standard planning and zoning procedures for marijuana-related premises.
Key quotations
“because the cause lacks any case or controversy as to these plaintiffs, and is merely a request for an advisory opinion, we must dismiss the appeal.” (¶1)
“We do not issue advisory opinions.” (¶21)
Factual background
Oklahoma voters legalized medical marijuana through State Question 788, and Broken Arrow subsequently enacted ordinances regulating medical-marijuana operations, including zoning, permits, fees, parking, and building-code requirements. Cloudi Mornings, an entity engaged in cannabis growing, and Austin Miller challenged the City's authority before alleging that the ordinances had denied them a permit, imposed a specific fee, or barred them from a particular location. During the appeal, the Legislature amended the governing statute to define an undue zoning restriction and to authorize municipalities to use standard planning and zoning procedures for marijuana-related premises.
Procedural history
Cloudi Mornings and Austin Miller filed a petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief challenging Broken Arrow ordinances regulating medical-marijuana operations. The district court entered a final declaratory judgment on October 17, 2018, invalidated the ordinances, and enjoined their enforcement. The City appealed, and the Supreme Court retained the cause, later remanding for findings concerning the 2019 statutory amendments. After the trial court found that the ordinances did not unduly restrict retail marijuana establishments and that the amendments clarified the prior statute, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as presenting no longer-existing controversy.