The legal haze hanging over Royal Oak's recreational marijuana rollout just cleared. Michigan's Supreme Court yesterday backed the suburb's handling of its tightly limited retail licenses, ruling that a behind-closed-doors scoring process led by the city manager did not violate the state's Open Meetings Act.
The unanimous decision keeps the city's license awards in place and sharply limits when the Open Meetings Act applies to municipal licensing work handled by a single executive official.
High court reverses appeals court
In a 6-0 opinion written by Justice Brian Zahra, the state Supreme Court wiped out a ruling from the Michigan Court of Appeals and rejected the challengers' argument that the city manager's private deliberations were really a "public body" that had to meet in the open, The Detroit News reported. The justices held that because the manager was acting alone under authority delegated by the city commission, the Open Meetings Act's public-meeting requirements did not apply to those sessions.
How the fight started
Royal Oak adopted a recreational-marijuana ordinance in 2020 that capped the number of retail licenses and required city officials to rank applicants for the few coveted slots. In a December 2024 opinion, the Court of Appeals concluded that the manager's closed-door evaluation process effectively functioned as a governing body and sent the case back for a remedy, according to FindLaw. It was that reversal that the Supreme Court agreed to review and has now overturned.
Licenses and the process at issue
The city reported receiving dozens of applications and having the city commission delegate the competitive review to the city manager. He sorted applicants into three tiers: winners, standbys, and those rejected, before the commission took final action. Michigan Courts records show Royal Oak ultimately moved forward with permits for businesses including Gatsby Cannabis Company and Royal Treatment, among others. That selection process, and follow-up land-use approvals, sat at the center of the losing applicants' challenge.
Why the ruling matters
Justice Zahra's opinion stresses that the Open Meetings Act is aimed at collective decision-making bodies, not at a lone executive officer carrying out tasks assigned by an elected board. On that basis, the high court ordered the lower court to enter judgment in favor of the city, The Detroit News reported. In practical terms, the decision gives cities more room to funnel licensing reviews through administrators, even as other transparency rules remain in place.
Legal implications
Amici briefs filed with the Supreme Court, including from municipal organizations, asked for clear guidance on whether delegating screening work to managers would trigger the Open Meetings Act's public-session rules. Those concerns appear in the record through Michigan Courts. The ruling is likely to send city attorneys and state lawmakers back to their flowcharts to double-check how licensing systems are structured and what notice or procedural guardrails should accompany delegated administrative reviews.
What plaintiffs may do next
Two of the six unsuccessful applicants appealed after a trial court granted summary judgment to Royal Oak in 2023. With the Supreme Court now reversing the Court of Appeals, the Open Meetings Act theory is closed off in this case. The plaintiffs could still explore other legal arguments or administrative avenues, but their core claim that the city manager's meetings were covered by the Open Meetings Act has been rejected by Michigan's highest court, as reflected in the appellate record.
For Royal Oak residents, the ruling ends years of uncertainty over who really ran the city's limited cannabis licensing process. Across Michigan, city halls and would-be marijuana operators will be watching to see whether local procedures quietly shift or new public-notice steps are added in the wake of the decision.
