The Michigan Supreme Court ruled on July 23, 2026, that the city manager of Royal Oak is not considered a public body under the Open Meetings Act (OMA). This decision stems from a dispute over the city’s marijuana retail licensing process, which has implications for how local governments handle similar licensing procedures.
The case involved two plaintiffs, Exclusive Capital Partners LLC and Quality Roots, Inc., who applied for marijuana retail licenses in Royal Oak. They were among 21 applicants vying for two available licenses. The city manager, Paul Brake, ultimately selected two other applicants, leading to a legal challenge from the plaintiffs. They alleged that the city violated the OMA during the selection process.
The dispute began when the city manager convened a workgroup to review the applications. The plaintiffs claimed that the meetings of this workgroup should have been public under the OMA. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the city, but the Court of Appeals later reversed this decision, stating that the city manager acted as a governing body and thus was subject to the OMA.
The Michigan Supreme Court's opinion, delivered by Justice Brian Zahra, clarified that the city manager was not required to comply with the OMA. The court found that the city manager was acting under the authority granted by the city’s marijuana ordinance, which did not delegate authority to the city commission. The court stated, “The city manager does not qualify as a ‘public body’ as defined by the OMA.”
The ruling emphasized that the OMA applies to collective entities, not individuals. The court referenced its previous decision in Herald Co v Bay City, stating, “public body” as used in the OMA connotes a collective entity and does not encompass individuals.
The court also noted that the city manager’s authority to rank applicants was clearly defined in the ordinance and did not require public meetings. The ordinance allowed the city manager to implement and administer the license application process, and thus, the city manager was acting within his official capacity.
This ruling has significant implications for local governments across Michigan. It clarifies the boundaries of the OMA in relation to individual government officials and their authority. The decision means that city managers and similar officials may not be subject to the same public meeting requirements as governing bodies, potentially allowing for more discretion in administrative processes.
The ruling could also impact how municipalities approach the licensing of marijuana establishments in the future. With the growing number of cities adopting similar ordinances, understanding the legal framework surrounding public meetings and licensing processes will be crucial for both applicants and local governments.
As for what’s next, the plaintiffs may consider their options for appeal, although the Supreme Court's ruling is final unless new grounds for appeal arise. There are currently no related cases pending that could affect this ruling directly.
This case, docketed under numbers 168243 and 168244, highlights the ongoing legal complexities surrounding marijuana regulation and local governance in Michigan.