[ad_1]
By Jesse Mondry, Attorney at Harris Bricken
Oregon marijuana growers dreading the new aspergillus testing rule can exhale (for now). That’s because on Friday, August 25, the Oregon Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the new aspergillus testing rule pending a final hearing on the merits. This is a big deal! Kudos the Cannabis Industry Alliance of Oregon (CIAO) and the co-petitioners who filed a petition against the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) and Oregon Liquor & Cannabis Commission (OLCC) seeking judicial review of the new aspergillus testing rule. Kevin Jacoby, who represents the petitioners, did an excellent job. We’ve covered the aspergillus testing rule before here, here, and discussed the lawsuit here. We were not optimistic about the odds of success, but are quite pleased for our numerous clients who grow marijuana in Oregon.
Let’s dive into the ruling and what it means.
How did we get here?
In March 2023, the Oregon Health Authority (“OHA”) promulgated a new rule that required testing marijuana for certain microbiological contaminants, including for aspergillus. On July 28, 2023, the CIAO and others filed a lawsuit challenging the OHA’s new aspergillus testing rule. The petitioners seek to stop the OHA from enforcing the rule and when they filed suit they also filed a motion for emergency relief from the new aspergillus testing rule.
A litigant who seeks emergency relief compelling or preventing another litigant from doing something is fighting an uphill battle. Here, the petitioners had to establish to the Supreme Court that “irreparable injury probably would result” if a stay is denied. The Supreme Court also considers the likelihood that petitioners will prevail on the merits and the likelihood of harm to the public if a stay is granted.
Petitioners offered evidence that the harm to them from enforcement of the aspergillus testing would be “devastating and irreparable.” This evidence included petitioner’s showing that at least one of them would be out of business and causing a “risk of total business failure as soon as this fall” to numerous other marijuana growers if the stay was denied. Respondents (OHA & OLCC) argued the impact of the aspergillus testing rule was “highly exaggerated” but did not argue petitioners failed to show irreparable harm. The Court found petitioners made the required showing of irreparable harm.
The Court turned to whether petitioners demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, and ruled they did. Petitioners argued that the OHA exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating the aspergillus testing rule by failing to consider “less restrictive alternatives” as required by Oregon Statute 475C.544(8)(b). Petitioners directed the Court to evidence showing the OHA was aware of less restrictive alternatives adopted in other states and argued the aspergillus testing rule was more restrictive than necessary to protect public health. Respondents (the OHA), said the Court, did not raise a “clear response” to this argument. Because the legislature directed that the OHA standards “may not” be more restrictive than reasonably necessary, the Court ruled that petitioners have shown a likelihood of success on judicial review.
Finally, the Court examined whether staying enforcement of the aspergillus testing rule would negatively affect public health. Petitioners argued it would not. They pointed to Oregon’s eight-year track record of recreational marijuana and twenty-five year history of medical marijuana use. In all that time, explained petitioners, there has been no data linking cannabis consumption to higher rates of aspergillosis in Oregonians. The Court found this persuasive and made no mention of any evidence or argument presented by the OHA or OLCC.
What does the ruling mean?
Neither the OHA nor can the OLCC enforce the aspergillus testing rule at this time. Specifically, the court stayed enforcement, pending completion of judicial review, of the provisions of OAR 333-007-0390 relating to testing for “Aspergillus flavus, A fumigatus, A niger and A terreus.” The court did not stay the portions of the rule relating to “Shiga toxin producing Escherichia coli and Salmonella species,” which were not challenged in this case.
The Oregon aspergillus testing fight is not over
This is a big victory for cannabis growers in Oregon. But the case is not over. The case now proceeds to a full hearing where the parties may offer more evidence. Essentially, the Court decided to stay enforcement of the rule on an emergency basis, but the final decision comes later.
Aspergillus testing won’t be required this fall harvest
We highly doubt the case will progress in the next few months. That means, until further notice, the aspergillus testing rule cannot be enforced as described above.
Petitioners have the upper hand so far
This ruling is a boon for petitioners and Oregon marijuana growers. Reading between the lines of the opinion, the Court found petitioners presented very strong evidence and arguments that the OHA’s rule goes far beyond what may be needed to protect the public from aspergillus. Perhaps this will cause the OHA and OLCC to entertain discussions with the CIAO and others on how to rewrite the rule to protect both marijuana growers and satisfy the public health concerns that led them to adopt this rule.
Again, great work on behalf of the industry by the CIAO and others.
Re-published with the permission of Harris Bricken and The Canna Law Blog
[ad_2]
Source link
