DeSantis Administration Wants New Hearing in Major Pot Case
A panel of the First District Court of Appeal ruled that Florida's “vertical integration” system runs afoul of a constitutional amendment that broadly legalized medical marijuana.
July 25, 2019 at 03:29 PM
5 minute read
Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration is asking an appellate court to revisit a decision that Florida officials argue injected “confusion and uncertainty” into the state's medical marijuana industry.
DeSantis and health officials on Wednesday asked the First District Court of Appeal for a hearing by the full court, known as an “en banc” hearing, after a July 9 ruling that Florida's “vertical integration” system requiring licensed operators to grow, process and distribute cannabis and byproducts runs afoul of a constitutional amendment that broadly legalized medical marijuana.
The decision by a three-judge panel of the court “is of exceptional importance because it implicates whether the entire regulatory framework currently in place for the licensing of medical marijuana treatment centers should be overturned,” lawyers for the state argued in Wednesday's 28-page motion.
The panel upheld in part a decision issued last year by Leon County Circuit Judge Charles Dodson, who sided with Tampa-based Florigrown in a lawsuit alleging a state law, passed during a 2017 special legislative session, did not properly carry out the 2016 constitutional amendment.
Dodson issued a temporary injunction requiring state health officials to begin registering Florigrown and other medical-marijuana firms to do business, but the judge's order was put on hold while the state appealed. Licensed operators are known in Florida as medical marijuana treatment centers.
The panel's “affirmance of a substantively flawed temporary injunction” by Dodson “has introduced further confusion and uncertainty into Florida's emerging medical marijuana industry,” the state's lawyers wrote in Wednesday's motion.
The decision also “presents a dramatic and unprecedented shift in this court's jurisprudence governing issuance of temporary injunctions,” which could have a significant impact on future cases, the lawyers added.
Wednesday's widely expected motion also asked the court to refer the case to the Florida Supreme Court, a process known as “certification of a question of great public importance,” if the appeals court refuses to grant a rehearing.
The July 9 ruling by Judges Scott Makar, James Wolf and T. Kent Wetherell, who is now a federal judge, gave Florida Department of Health officials “a reasonable amount of time” to begin registering medical marijuana operators.
But, even with the panel's modifications to Dodson's temporary injunction, the appeals court decision leaves Florida's medical marijuana program in “a regulatory twilight zone,” the state's lawyers argued Wednesday.
“The uncertainty surrounding the current licensing and enforcement of MMTCs [medical marijuana treatment centers] during this 'reasonable period of time,' coupled with the near certain litigation surrounding the [health] department's implementation of an entirely new medical marijuana regulatory and licensing structure, will only serve to draw out the court-ordered 'wholesale restructuring of the medical marijuana industry in Florida,' “ the lawyers wrote.
DeSantis, who forced the Legislature to do away with a ban on smoking medical marijuana, expressed concern early this year about Florida's vertical integration system, which requires operators to handle all aspects of the cannabis trade, including growing, processing and dispensing. If the state did not have a vertical integration system, companies could focus on individual aspects of the business.
The state's arguments Tuesday echoed concerns expressed in a separate opinion authored by Wetherell on July 9.
The majority's decision “will effectively mandate an immediate change in the entire structure of the medical marijuana industry in Florida,” wrote Wetherell, concurring in part and dissenting in part with the majority opinion.
But “although such a change may ultimately be warranted,” Dodson and Florigrown failed to show “how the public interest would be served by mandating this change through a preliminary injunction,” according to Wetherell.
A separate three-judge panel heard arguments last week in the Florida House's attempt to enter the lawsuit, which could revolutionize the state's medical marijuana market, where licenses are routinely selling for upward of $50 million.
During the July 16 hearing, Judge Brad Thomas openly questioned Dodson's decision.
“The [constitutional] amendment was a monumental change of the law, in allowing the distribution of a drug that is illegal under federal law, illegal under Florida law except to the extent that it's authorized by the amendment, and a circuit judge has declared this regulatory scheme invalid. How can the House not be allowed to intervene on the merits of that determination?” Thomas asked Katherine Giddings, a lawyer representing Florigrown.
Giddings said the House waited too long to intervene in the case, and that the issue had already been settled by the three-judge panel.
“This is a situation where the legislation is so blatantly unconstitutional,” Giddings said.
But Thomas disagreed, saying the constitutionality of the law will be determined by the appeals court, not the circuit judge.
“It's not blatantly unconstitutional until we decide whether it is or not,” Thomas said.
Dara Kam 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
© 2025 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 AllTrending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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