The Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission continues to pump the breaks on issuing licenses while it awaits resolution in several cases in state court. The commission considered dual motions to officially stay the licensing process for adult-use dispensaries and hybrid facilities, but opted to table the measures at least until April.
During the AMCC’s monthly meeting on March 13, the commission attempted to assuage concerns that they might be continuing the licensing process, including confirming applicant information and conducting site reviews for proposed facilities and several other administrative tasks that precede the actual awarding of a license.
“We’ve had a number of things that have happened in the legal landscape,” said AMCC General Counsel Justin Aday, who gave an update to the commission during the March meeting. “The commission staff has not taken any action that would be in violation of these TROs (temporary restraining orders) or the court.”
Licensing has been on hold since a Jan. 3 temporary restraining order issued by Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge James Anderson in the case of Alabama Always LLC Et Al v. State of Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission.
The AMCC set a 28-day time limit between when license winners are announced and when they actually receive the license in order to allow for more due diligence to ensure that applicants qualify and are in compliance, actions that have stopped amid the latest court order.
The third round was awarded on Dec. 12, meaning that licenses should have been issued by Jan. 9. In theory, a case dismissal and the end of the court order could result in the commission only having six days left before they have to issue the licenses, according to Aday.
Aday explained that his proposal for the AMCC to formally issue a stay on licensing would present a show of good faith that the commission plans to respect all court orders. It could also buy the commission some time in the event that the cases against them are dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, meaning the third round of license winners would be awarded licenses.
“Our reading is that they are a protective action for in the event that these appeals on jurisdiction result in a dismissed case,” he said. “There is considerable inspection action that would have to take place. We do not have any intent of hurriedly issuing licenses, but we can’t complete the inspections with all the uncertainty with the courts.”
AMCC counsel Mark Wilkerson explained that if the commission were to decline to issue a stay, it could make it easier to argue before the court that the commission was not committed to respecting any court orders limiting the issuance of licenses.
“This will give us a little more time to think on it,” he said.
Commission concerned stay would further delay cannabis program
Commissioner Louree Skelton expressed concern that a formal stay from the AMCC would only further delay the state’s long-awaited medical cannabis roll-out.
“I think it’s very important to show respect to the court, but everything would be shut down and no one would be able to get their medicine,” she said.
Ultimately, the commission voted to hold off on making a decision about a stay until its April 11 meeting, with nine commissioners in favor and three abstaining.
The commission first attempted medical cannabis licenses on June 12, 2023. The licenses included five for vertically integrated facilities, four for cultivation, four processing, four dispensing, three transporting and a single testing lab license.
Four days later, the commission suspended those awards and announced that they would be rescored to ensure consistency between applicants.
About two months later, the commission announced its second attempt at awarding licenses. Verano Holdings, who was included in the first round but excluded in the second, sued the state.
The commission made a third attempt at issuing licenses in December, but those too attracted legal action.
Most of the AMCC’s legal challenges have been consolidated into a single case, and on March 11, the state filed a motion to dismiss. The companies that are suing have until April 1 to file their response, and then the state can answer by April 15, meaning that there is likely another month before the AMCC can make any headway on licensing.
“As it stands, there will be no further action at least until April 15,” said Aday.
