Over the last several years, cannabis use has been cemented as a hot-button political topic, with states across the country proposing and passing legislation to allow, limit, and regulate its use. Although most of the mainstream conversation is centered around the ethics and physical effects of marijuana use, the legalization of medical cannabis use has created a myriad of legal and administrative challenges hidden from the purview of public discussion. Behind the scenes of this intense debate, licensing battles are unfolding in Alabama’s court system, with the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission finding itself at the heart of the controversy. As Alabama continues working to implement the necessary infrastructure to streamline the medical use of cannabis, these issues are increasingly coming to light, raising the question: how should the logistics be handled?
In 2021, Alabama passed SB46, known as the Darren Wesley ‘Ato’ Hall Compassion Act, which provided for the creation of a program to allow and regulate medical cannabis use in the state. This act reflects a broader national trend towards legalizing medical cannabis, with thirty-six states and four territories currently allowing for cannabis use in some form. California initiated the push for cannabis use by legalizing medical cannabis in 1996, with other states following suit in subsequent decades. Although some states have extended legalization to recreational uses of cannabis in recent years, Alabama has declined to do so at this stage, limiting cannabis use to medical purposes. Federal legislation has paved the way for this trend, passing the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment in 2014 to prevent the justice department from interfering with state laws regarding medical cannabis, affirming state sovereignty in this realm. In 2022, the federal government also passed the first standalone cannabis reform bill our nation has seen, the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, securing future research efforts towards the medical uses of cannabis. Taken together, these legislative acts paint a clear picture: Alabama and the rest of the United States are beginning to embrace the potential of medical cannabis.
As part of the Darren Wesley ‘Ato’ Hall Compassion Act, the state legislature formed the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission (AMCC) to oversee all aspects of Alabama’s new medical cannabis industry. The AMCC was tasked with issuing licenses at all stages of the production process, including for cultivators, processors, transporters, and a testing lab. Although the AMCC was also granted authority over licensing integrated companies, this process has been slowed by ongoing litigation that is still working its way through the Alabama court system. Under the current structure, the AMCC is limited to the issuance of only five integrated licenses, spurring intense competition and a myriad of legal challenges from companies who were not initially granted licenses. Recent decisions have provided some clarity on the issue, recognizing the AMCC’s sovereign immunity under Article I, §14 of the Alabama Constitution, which prevents lawsuits seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Commission. However, further rulings have legitimized the legal basis for bringing action against the AMCC’s licensing decisions, causing the matter to remain unsettled.
The medical use of cannabis in Alabama is governed by Title 20, Chapter 2A of the Alabama Code. This chapter imposes a licensing requirement on potential cultivators, processors, dispensaries, secure transporters, state testing laboratories, and integrated facilities, outlining the necessary procedures and requirements for each. Under this chapter, only five integrated-facility licenses are available. The statutory scheme also serves as a source of authority for the AMCC, appointing the Commission as the overseers and regulators of the licensing process. While some licensing provisions of the Alabama Code await further legislative review, and ongoing litigation attacks, certain aspects of the licensing process, the license requirement is firmly attached to the legalization of medical marijuana, allowing for state regulation and tracking of the industry.
Although several years have passed since the initial passage of the Darren Wesley ‘Ato’ Hall Compassion Act, court action has prevented the AMCC from fully implementing all aspects of the state’s medical cannabis infrastructure. While some matters are still pending in Alabama courts, certain key decisions provide insight into the future of the AMCC’s authority, casting light on potential outcomes in this realm. In Verano Alabama, LLC v. Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals upheld the AMCC’s authority to revoke their license awards, drawing on the Alabama Administrative Code as an alternative source for the AMCC’s power. The Court offered further clarity in Ex parte Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission last month, affirming the agency’s sovereign immunity and subsequent protection from court action unless specific statutory exceptions apply. However, in an ongoing dispute between the Commission and Alabama Always, along with other entities seeking integrated-facility licenses, the Court denied the AMCC’s mandamus petition. The initial motions were dismissed in light of the AMCC’s sovereign immunity, but Alabama Always filed a new “verified petition for judicial review and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief,” along with a petition to extend the time for filing, which was granted. This ruling ensures that Alabama Always and other rejected license applicants can address their concerns in court despite the AMCC’s sovereign immunity, leaving the door open for potential future changes to the Commission’s licensing procedures.
With the recent ruling ensuring potential licensees have the opportunity to voice their concerns through the judicial system, any entity looking to pursue a medical-cannabis license should seek knowledgeable legal counsel. The process for obtaining a license includes stiff competition, potential hearings, the opportunity to correct deficiencies and appeal denials, and requirements for renewal, making it especially necessary to appropriately navigate the legal aspects of licensing. After obtaining a license, holders are obligated to continuously provide any requested information and cooperate with investigations and hearings, ensuring integration of the legal system throughout the licensing process. As litigation continues to unfold and the Alabama legislator works to define the logistical implementation of this rising industry, it is increasingly necessary to stay within the confines of these developing regulations.
If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case, contact Joe Ingram or Ingram Law LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief Get Results.