State Judge Asked to Lift Stay in Medical Marijuana Smoking Case
People United for Medical Marijuana and other plaintiffs, including patients with Lou Gehrig's disease and HIV, filed a motion asking Circuit Judge Karen Gievers to clear the way for her ruling on smokable marijuana to take effect.
May 31, 2018 at 12:02 PM
3 minute read
The battle over whether Florida patients should be able to smoke medical marijuana continues to flare.
After a Leon County circuit judge ruled last week that smokable marijuana is allowed under a 2016 constitutional amendment, plaintiffs in the case are asking her to lift a stay that was automatically imposed when the Florida Department of Health appealed the ruling.
The group People United for Medical Marijuana and other plaintiffs, including patients with Lou Gehrig's disease and HIV, filed a motion late Tuesday asking Circuit Judge Karen Gievers to clear the way for her ruling on smokable marijuana to take effect. The motion pointed to the possibility of “irreparable harm” for the patients, Cathy Jordan and Diana Dodson, if the stay remains in effect during the health department's appeal.
“The automatic stay will prolong the period that Ms. Jordan, Ms. Dodson and all Floridians like them with debilitating medical conditions who would benefit from smokable medical marijuana are unable to receive the best available treatment for them,” the motion said. “Without any corresponding benefit to the defendants [the health department], the automatic stay increases the pain and suffering of the individual plaintiffs and denies them access to a constitutionally permitted medical treatment. This is the irreparable harm that plaintiffs will suffer if the automatic stay is permitted to remain in effect.”
Gievers' ruling last Friday overturned part of a law passed by the Legislature that barred patients from smoking medical marijuana. The law was designed to carry out the 2016 constitutional amendment that legalized marijuana for a wide range of patients, but the smoking ban quickly drew a legal challenge.
The constitutional amendment did not expressly authorize smoking pot and gave the state the authority to enact regulations about medical marijuana use.
But, agreeing with the plaintiffs, Gievers found that language in the amendment “recognizes there is no right to smoke in public places, thereby implicitly recognizing the appropriateness of using smokable medical marijuana in private places consistent with the amendment.”
The “ability to smoke medical marijuana was implied” in the constitutional language “and is therefore a protected right,” Gievers wrote.
The health department, however, immediately filed a notice of appeal at the First District Court of Appeal. The appeal led to an automatic stay, which is common in cases involving state agencies.
With marijuana able to be used in other ways, lawmakers last year said the smoking ban was needed because smoking can cause health problems. In appealing the case, the health department said Gievers' ruling “goes against what the Legislature outlined when they wrote and approved Florida's law to implement the constitutional amendment that was approved by an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority.”
Gievers on Wednesday scheduled a hearing for Monday to address the motion to vacate the stay.
If another pending medical-marijuana case is any indication, the plaintiffs could have difficulty getting the stay lifted.
In the other case, Gievers ruled last month that Tampa businessman Joe Redner should be able to grow his own marijuana as part of treatment to prevent a relapse of lung cancer. After the state appealed the decision, Gievers vacated an automatic stay. But the First District then reinstated the stay.
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Trending Stories
- 1Ben Brafman Defending Celebrity Rabbi in Lawsuit by Miami Hotel
- 2People in the News—Dec. 23, 2024—Barley Snyder, Marshall Dennehey
- 3How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'Be a Lawyer First, Foremost and Always,' Says Matthew McLaughlin of Venable
- 4Bar Report - Dec. 23
- 5Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250