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
© 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 AllCOVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms
Year-End Tax Planning: How Real Estate Investors Can Leverage Qualified Opportunity Funds
5 minute read'Horror of Horrors': Florida Judges Spar Over En Banc Review in Binance Ruling
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 2Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 3Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 4Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 5X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
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