The court of appeal court is a victory for the applicants and eventually the patients

The Alabama Civil Court of Civil Appeal issued a long-awaited decision on Friday, ceaselessly concluded by the Alabama medical marijuana, throwing a temporary restriction order imposed by the judge of the Circuit Court in Montgomery county and rejecting the appeals.

It was a decision welcomed by the medical cannabis commission Alabama as a victory. It was a decision greeted by the plaintiffs, a company called Alabama Always, LLC., He refused a license to operate, as a win.

This result, of course, is impossible. There is no way in which both could be winners.

However, there was the executive director of AMCC, John McMillan, claiming that “we are satisfied with the decision” and that he hopes that the decision will “Remove obstacles that prevented the Commission from completing the licensing process and performing the works that the law perceived. “

Then Alabama’s lawyer, Will Somerville, saying that the Court of Appeal offers the company “Everything I asked for since December 2023. ”

So who is right?

It is difficult to see this as anything but a victory for Alabama and the other applicants who have sued AMCC for its licensing process. And it remains comical that McMillan and others continue to paint the four-year delay in issuing licenses as a product of someone else’s failures, instead of taking responsibility for the absolute refusal to comply with the law.

To be sure, the decision of the Court of Appeal considers it a victory for AMCC. While rejecting AMCC calls, this does this just because it declares the cancellation of the temporary restriction order. The removal of the temporary restriction order would be, again, on its face, to raise the road block that eliminated the licensing process.

Even Somerville, when I spoke to him, I admitted that his heart sank when he read the initial formulation of opinion.

But then he read further.

And full opinion actually establishes almost everything that the applicants in this case have requested for 18 months or something – that AMCC is regulated by the Law on administrative procedures in Alabama and must take certain measures regarding the granting of licenses.

This was the central point of the processes.

AMCC asked to organize “challenged case hearings” following the attribution of licenses – and before these licenses are physically issued to the winners – and allow companies who have considered that they are wrongly rejected an opportunity to challenge the decisions. These hearings should be heard by an administrative law judge, who will allow both parties to present evidence, question witnesses and present their own cases. In the end, after establishing a complete registration, the judge issues a decision.

For months, AMCC indicated that it will not organize such hearings, but will implement another type of administrative remedy, but not before issuing the licenses of other companies. This would essentially do the worthless hearings, because, even if the companies that challenged the process would be victorious, there would be no license available to grant them.

The reason why the Court of Appeal pronounced the way he did on Friday is twice: AMCC recently agreed in numerous records and oral arguments before the court that it will be involved in “contested case hearings” that respect the APA. Also, the AMCC issued its own administrative residence and said that it will not issue licenses until the end of those contested case hearings.

With these two problems in the record, the court of appeal has established that there is nothing for the court to decide. AMCC should violate one or both for the court to have jurisdiction.

So, there are things. AMCC will not yet issue licenses yet. Instead, the process of organizing the hearings will begin based on the challenges raised by the applicants who have refused a license. This process will be quite long – somewhere about three to five months – and will lead to AMCC to finally stand out why the commissioners have chosen an applicant.

Following these hearings, depending on the judges of the administrative law judge, the licenses will be issued. At that time, the losing applicants will continue to have an option to file an appeal at the Circuit Court and to request a restriction order. However, at that time, with what should be a thorough registration and a lot of evidence to support decisions, success in court should be difficult to achieve, discouraging most failed applicants to follow this path.

This process is always Alabama, and several other applicants have asked during this ordeal. Better said: they do not believe that some of the applicants who have been granted licenses can meet the requirements of the state’s medical cannabis law – and I think the game was equipped to help some applicants – and they wanted a chance to publicly expose corruption and defective process.

The Judicial Court of Appeal on Friday offers this opportunity. And it moves us a little closer to getting quality products in desperate patients.