Naturale & Co. v. Bruce Eck

── Naturale & Co. v. Bruce Eck ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 26a0214n.06 Case No. 25-1990 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED May 15, 2026 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) NATURALE & CO., ) Plaintiff, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED HAMTRAMCK INVESTMENT GROUP, ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR INC., ) THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF Plaintiff-Appellant, ) MICHIGAN ) v. ) OPINION ) BRUCE ECK, ) ) Defendant, ) ) CITY OF HAMTRAMCK, MICHIGAN, ) Defendant-Appellee. ) Before: WHITE, THAPAR, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges. MATHIS, Circuit Judge. In early 2021, Hamtramck Investment Group, Inc. (“HIG”) sought to enter the growing marijuana market in the City of Hamtramck. But the clock was ticking. The City was moving to restrict any new retailers from operating within city limits. So HIG met with the city clerk to see what it could do. Based on its impression from that meeting, HIG believed that it could proceed as planned. Yet when the State of Michigan eventually declined to grant HIG a marijuana retailers license based off the City’s disapproval, HIG sued the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting a substantive-due-process claim. The district court granted summary judgment to the City. We affirm. No. 25-1990, Naturale & Co. v. Eck I. In early 2021, HIG formed with the intent of opening a marijuana dispensary in the City of Hamtramck. At that time, the City did not have an ordinance prohibiting or limiting the number of marijuana businesses within its city limits. By February 4, HIG had leased a retail property (“the Property”) in the hopes of converting it into a marijuana facility. And it planned to profit from an apparent appetite for marijuana in the City. But the marijuana market was about to change. The City was moving to curtail the proliferation of new marijuana retailers. See Hamtramck Code of Ordinances § 121.003(B) (2026). And time was running out for interested players in the field. To understand this dispute, some background on the approval process for marijuana retailers in Michigan is useful. Although Michigan allows certain retailers to sell marijuana, “a municipality may completely prohibit or limit the number of mari[j]uana establishments within its boundaries.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.27956(1). Michigan will not issue a marijuana- establishment license if the “municipality in which the proposed mari[j]uana establishment will be located . . . notif[ies] [the State] that the proposed mari[j]uana establishment is not in compliance with an ordinance . . . in effect at the time of application.” Id. § 333.27959(3)(b). Additionally, before opening an adult-use marijuana establishment in the State, an applicant must go through a two-step approval process. The first step is prequalification. At this stage, the applicant pays a nonrefundable fee and undergoes a cr