Alabama appeals court orders dismissal of medical marijuana case; legal fight continues

The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals issued two rulings Friday in the lawsuits over business licenses for the state’s new medical marijuana industry.

A group called the Patients Coalition for Medical Cannabis issued a news release saying that one of the decisions marked a breakthrough that would lead to the removal of some of the legal hurdles that are delaying the issuance of licenses and availability of products for patients.

But a second decision issued by the Court of Civil Appeals was hailed as a victory by one of the companies denied a license and will allow that company’s lawsuit to proceed.

The litigation involves the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission, which was created by the Legislature to oversee the new industry, and companies that applied for but were denied licenses by the AMCC.

The AMCC issued a statement Friday about the two rulings.

“The two decisions issued today by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals highlight the procedural complexities of the litigation against the Commission over the past year,” the AMCC said. “AMCC is pleased that the Court, in one decision, dismissed the Master Case, which is the first step in untangling the legal web spun by dissatisfied applicants. The AMCC legal team will continue to defend the Commission’s actions in carrying out its statutory duties, including in the case that the Court of Civil Appeals returned for further proceedings in the trial court.”

The Legislature passed the medical marijuana law in 2021, setting up the AMCC to oversee an intrastate industry, including the companies that will cultivate, process, transport, test, and dispense the medical products. The AMCC has issued license to cultivators, processors, transporters, and a testing lab.

But licenses for integrated companies, those that can cultivate, process, transport, and sell the products, are on hold because of the litigation. Licenses for dispensaries are also on hold.

More than 30 companies applied for integrated licenses, but the AMCC, by law, can issue only five.

Alabama Always, a Montgomery-based company that applied for but was not awarded an integrated license, first sued last year in Montgomery County Circuit Court, challenging the AMCC’s procedures in awarding the licenses and alleging violations of the state’s administrative procedures act and open meetings act. Other companies sued, and Circuit Judge James Anderson consolidated most of the claims into the Alabama Always case, which became known as the master case.

Alabama Always and other plaintiffs asked the circuit court to allow discovery, or permission to obtain documents and depositions from the AMCC as part of their lawsuits. Anderson ruled that the companies could proceed with limited discovery and denied the AMCC’s motion to dismiss the case. The AMCC appealed those decisions to the Court of Civil Appeals.

On Friday, the Court of Civil Appeals ruled that the AMCC’s appeal was moot because the original Alabama Always case, the master case, was barred by sovereign immunity because of a technical flaw, it did not name the individual commissioners as defendants, only the agency. The Court of Civil Appeals ordered the circuit court to dismiss the master case and said all orders that were issued as part of that case were void. All five judges concurred with the decision.

Alabama Always had previously acknowledged the problem with its original case and moved to dismiss it. Alabama Always filed a new lawsuit on April 3. Three weeks later, the AMCC asked the Court of Civil Appeals to order the circuit court to dismiss the new Alabama Always case.

In Friday’s second ruling, the Court of Civil Appeals denied the AMCC’s request to order the dismissal of the new Alabama Always case.

William Somerville, an attorney for Alabama Always, said the company will again ask the court to allow it to obtain documents and depositions from the AMCC to better determine how the commissioners made their decisions on awarding and denying licenses.

“We will be able to now ask for discovery – where we can determine exactly how this commission has operated – and bring everything out in the open,” Somerville said in a press release.