DeSantis Administration Fights Medical Marijuana Ruling for Florigrown
The Florida Department of Health is challenging a July appellate decision that found a state law requiring medical marijuana operators to grow, process and sell cannabis and derivative products runs afoul of a constitutional amendment that broadly legalized medical marijuana.
December 11, 2019 at 01:28 PM
6 minute read
Calling a Tampa company's effort to get a medical marijuana license a "stunt," Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration is asking the Florida Supreme Court to reject an appeals court ruling that could upend the state's medical cannabis industry.
The Florida Department of Health is challenging a July appellate decision that found a state law requiring medical marijuana operators to grow, process and sell cannabis and derivative products, a system known as "vertical integration," runs afoul of a constitutional amendment that broadly legalized medical marijuana.
The department went to the Supreme Court in a lawsuit filed by Florigrown, a company owned in part by strip-club operator Joe Redner. The company filed the case after state health officials rejected its request for a medical marijuana license shortly after the constitutional amendment went into effect in 2017.
Leon County Circuit Judge Charles Dodson last year ordered state health officials to begin registering Florigrown and other medical marijuana firms to do business, but his order has been on hold since the state appealed.
In July, the First District Court of Appeal upheld in part Dodson's ruling that found the state's vertical integration system conflicted with the constitutional amendment, approved by more than 70% of voters in 2016.
DeSantis appealed that decision, and the Florida Supreme Court agreed to take up the case.
In an initial brief filed last week, lawyers representing DeSantis and health officials argued that the appellate court was wrong to uphold the temporary injunction ordered by Dodson.
The state's introduction to the 54-page brief chastises Redner and his partner, Adam Elend, saying they had "no revenue, significant assets, or relevant industry experience" when Florigrown applied for a medical marijuana license.
"The company … is run by a web video producer and owned by Joe Redner, neither of whom are botanists, pharmacists, physicians or have any professional experience or credentials in the medical field," the state's lawyers wrote.
Florigrown sought to "register" itself as a medical marijuana operator by sending a letter to state health officials two weeks after the constitutional amendment went into effect, the state explained.
"This stunt, which makes a mockery of all legal and regulatory procedures related to" the constitutional amendment "has resulted in the case now before this court," the state's lawyers argued.
The temporary injunction hinges on language in a state law, passed in 2017 as the Legislature carried out the constitutional amendment.
Under the law, the vertical integration system requires operators, dubbed "medical marijuana treatment centers," to handle all aspects of the cannabis trade. Critics of vertical integration contend that it shuts out firms that could perform individual aspects of the marijuana business.
The statute also says medical marijuana treatment centers "shall cultivate, process, transport, and dispense marijuana for medical use," while the amendment says a medical marijuana treatment center is an entity that "acquires, cultivates, possesses, processes … transfers, transports, sells, distributes, dispenses, or administers" medical marijuana.
The law requires entities to "conform to a more restricted definition" than is provided in the amendment, the majority in the 2-1 appellate court decision said this summer.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Scott Makar accused the Legislature of "rewriting clear language in the Constitution" by "transforming a disjunctive 'or' into a conjunctive 'and.' "
The appeals court agreed to ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on whether the vertical integration system and a cap on the number of marijuana licenses included in the state law "are in direct conflict" with the constitutional amendment.
In the brief filed last week, the state's lawyers argued "nothing in the amendment alters the Legislature's power to make policy decisions related to the regulatory oversight of medical marijuana in Florida."
The Legislature was acting within its authority "when it created a broad regulatory scheme to implement the amendment, including regulations for the licensing and structure of MMTCs," the lawyers wrote, using the acronym for medical marijuana treatment centers.
"Indeed, the amendment itself contemplates legislative action," they added.
The appellate court "overlooked the Legislature's broad lawmaking authority" when evaluating Florigrown's challenge, the state's lawyers wrote, arguing that Florigrown does not have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case.
The constitutional amendment "is silent" as to the number of operators that may be registered in the state or whether the medical marijuana treatment centers should be horizontally or vertically integrated, the state's lawyers argued.
"Most importantly, nothing in the amendment expressly prohibits the Legislature from making policy decisions on those two points," they added.
The state also tried to persuade the Supreme Court to uphold the cap on the number of medical marijuana operators included in the law.
The cap on licenses "ensures adequate oversight of a burgeoning industry," the DeSantis administration lawyers argued.
The limit on the licenses was also designed to ensure that medical marijuana "would not be diverted to other states where it remains illegal, that it would not be diverted to minors" and that operators would not use medical marijuana "as a pretext … for other illegal activities," the state's lawyers wrote.
"Steady expansion, commensurate with need, also fulfills the amendment's purpose of giving patients access to the safe use of medical marijuana," they argued.
Doing away with the cap on the number of medical marijuana operators in Florida would almost certainly cause the value of existing licenses, which have sold for upward of $50 million, to plummet.
The state's lawyers also argued that Dodson's ruling and the subsequent appellate court decision "injected confusion and uncertainty" into the registration process for medical marijuana vendors and "attempts to radically alter the status quo."
DeSantis' administration is asking the Supreme Court to send the case back to Dodson and tell the circuit judge to deny Florigrown's motion for a temporary injunction.
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 All'Close Our Borders?' Senate Judiciary Committee Examines Economics, Legal Predicate for Mass Deportation Proposal
3 minute read'Stab Venequip in the Back': Caterpillar Faces $100M Lawsuit in Miami Federal Court
3 minute readAnother Roundup Trial Kicks Off in Missouri. Monsanto Faces 3 Plaintiffs
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Glynn County Judge Rejects Ex-DA's Motion to Halt Her Misconduct Trial in Ahmaud Arbery Investigation
- 2Pa 100: Largest Law Firms
- 3Whistleblowers Are Here To Stay: Counseling Corporate Clients on Whistleblower Programs
- 4Intentionally Caused Motor Vehicle Accidents In the Video Spotlight
- 5Scrap the State's Taxpayer Funding of Elections
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