The Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission (AMCC) on Tuesday appealed a trial court order that allowed unsuccessful license applicants to quickly remove their commissioners.

The unsuccessful applicants are now plaintiffs in a civil lawsuit against AMCC, based on accusations that the commissioner violated the law by holding secret meetings in front of the public. An order was secured authorizing the recording.

To date, no plaintiff has identified which committee members participated in these meetings.

AMCC is asking the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals to vacate an order issued by Montgomery Circuit Judge James Anderson in early January.

AMCC also joined an ongoing appeal filed by Trulieve Alabama, Inc. This is the first time AMCC has sided with the applicant in the months-long lawsuit against the company.

Trulieve Alabama's appeal defends AMCC's licensing process and asks the Court of Civil Appeals to vacate the trial court's order preventing AMCC from moving forward with implementation of the state's medical marijuana program.

RELATED: Inside the latest legal tug of war in Alabama's medical marijuana award process

In a Jan. 31 filing, AMCC argued that the Alabama Legislature has made the state subject to the Alabama Administrative Procedures Act (AAPA), which requires plaintiffs to have no right to file a lawsuit in court. It requires that administrative remedies be exhausted first.

The Commission argues that the trial court should have denied any discovery at this point because the exhaustion requirement deprives the trial court of its ability to hear many of the plaintiffs' claims.

Some plaintiffs requested administrative hearings on why their licenses were not granted, while others went directly to court without even requesting a hearing with AMCC. AMCC says Judge Anderson's order halting proceedings has prevented it from even scheduling a hearing.

AMCC's position is that the Alabama Open Meetings Act (AOMA), which the plaintiffs allege the commissioners are violating, serves the public's interest in government transparency and the commissioners' interest in avoiding harassment under the guise of discovery. It is a matter of striking a balance between

AMCC argues that this balance is maintained by AOMA's requirement for a preliminary evidentiary hearing in which the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. According to AMCC, that's not happening.

AMCC faces numerous lawsuits from unsuccessful applicants. Alabama has consistently failed to secure one of its five integrated licenses and is now accusing AMCC of violating its statute, the Darren Wesley “At” Hall Mercy Act. . Alabama Always also alleges that AMCC violates its own rules and the AAPA.

RELATED: Failed cannabis applicant returns to court in attempt to block successful license award

AMCC is also being sued by Southeast Cannabis Company. TheraTrue Alabama; Yellowhammer Medical Dispensaries LLC; Gemstone Alabama LLC; 3 Notch Roots LLC; Pure by Salmon Farms. Insa Alabama LLC; There are several other unsuccessful applicants.

Both question the legality of AMCC's actions and demand an opportunity to remove the commissioners as well.

On December 27, 2023, the State of Alabama Always filed a motion seeking expedited discovery regarding the AAPA and AOMA matters. On the same day, Insa filed a nearly identical motion for expedited discovery. On December 28, Judge Anderson issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) regarding the issuance of dispensary licenses, halting implementation of Alabama's medical marijuana program.

Mr. Anderson issued a TRO for an integrated facility, an entity that has the ability to be involved in all aspects of the industry from seed to sales under the law. Even before the license was granted, plaintiffs had asked the court to allow discovery into commissioners' communications and thought processes. AMCC has opposed the dismissal of its members by plaintiffs' lawyers.

The AMCC holds that the plaintiff 1) fails to meet AOMA's procedural and evidentiary requirements and 2) fails to first exhaust all administrative remedies, depriving the plaintiff of trial jurisdiction. , alleging that they are not entitled to discovery under the law.

RELATED: Most medical marijuana licenses expected to be issued

On January 3, 2024, the trial court issued an order authorizing the Commissioner for expedited discovery. AMCC argued that the order did not set any parameters (other than numerical limits) to guide discovery or any limitations on the scope of discovery. On January 30, 2024, the trial court entered an order denying the Commission's request for a confidentiality order and reconsideration.

AMCC is now asking the Court of Civil Appeals to issue a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate both discovery orders and deny plaintiff's request for expedited discovery.

The AMCC said it was permitted by the Mercy Act to award medical marijuana licenses in the way it did on Dec. 12, and that “the challengers ultimately want the commission to award marijuana licenses.” , has filed a lawsuit.''

Congress passed the Mercy Act, which would “make medical marijuana grown in Alabama available to registered patients by licensing facilities that process, transport, test, or dispense medical marijuana.” It was approved. Through the Compassion Act, the Legislature established the commission and gave it the sole authority to award and issue licenses.

AMCC hopes that medical marijuana will be available for sale in Alabama as early as this summer, but pending litigation is making that more likely.

To contact the author of this story or comment, send an email [email protected]