The battle over medical marijuana licenses in Alabama has reached the state Supreme Court.
Trulieve AL filed a notice of appeal with the Alabama Supreme Court on Wednesday, announcing its intention to challenge a temporary restraining order issued earlier this month by Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge James Anderson. The restraining order halts the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission's licensing process and prevents it from completing the licensing process.
Anderson filed for the restraining order after evidence was presented at a December hearing showing that AMCC violated its own procedural rules in using a ranking system to vote on candidates for integrated licenses. issued and also ordered depositions in the matter. Under this system, even if the majority of committee members highly valued a company, a small number of committee members could effectively prevent an applicant company from obtaining a license.
But in his appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court, Trulieve asked the state Supreme Court to overturn that decision, arguing that companies must first exhaust all administrative remedies before going to court. There is. Trulieve argues that AMCC has an appeals process for such complaints.
However, Mr. Anderson specifically addressed that issue in his order granting the preliminary injunction, stating that the appellate process available to plaintiffs Alabama Always and Insa is limited to the number of licenses AMCC can award under (five). ) was invalid because it was limited. State Law. The deadline for issuing these licenses is Jan. 9, there is no possibility of correcting the mistakes after the licenses are distributed, and without a TRO, the plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm, Anderson said.
The injunction is the third suspension of AMCC's licensing process for integrated licenses. Following the previous two cases, the committee decided to start the process over to correct certain mistakes. I'll probably go down that path again.
In this case, the plaintiffs not only allege that AMCC violated its own procedural rules, but also that the commissioners violated the state's open meetings law by holding discussions about applicants and the licensing process outside of public meetings. It is also claimed that The court filing states that the plaintiffs will be working with several commissioners and AMCC Executive Director John McMillan to determine whether improper conduct has taken place to favor certain applicants in the proceeding. There are also indications that there are plans to dismiss him.
