Trulieve Cannabis Corp., Trulieve Holdings, Inc, and Trulieve AL, Inc. v. Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission et al. No. CL-2026-0201, 2026 WL 1993711 (Ala. Civ. App. July 10, 2026). The court (all Judges concur) reverses the Montgomery Circuit Court’s dismissal of Trulieve’s complaint seeking judicial review of an administrative-law judge’s order and remands for further consideration.
This case is the latest in a series of lawsuits related to the Darren Wesley “Alto” Hall Compassion Act “The Act”, Ala. Code 1975, § 20-2A-1 et seq., which legalized “medical” marijuana for personal use in the State of Alabama. *1. The Act created a commission to issue licenses related to the growing and distribution of medical cannabis. Id. The licenses at issue in this case are “integrated facility medical cannabis licenses” which authorize a company to cultivate, process, and distribute medical cannabis. Id. Trulieve applied for one of those licenses.
In the competitive, investigative hearing process for selecting recipients of the integrated-facility licenses, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued a protective order permitting applicants to designate application materials as "Confidential" or "Confidential – Attorney Eyes Only" (AEO). *1–2. Trulieve made just 17 AEO designations in its 1,400-page application, covering its business plan, operating procedures, and manufacturing processes. *2. After competing applicants objected, the ALJ restricted AEO protection to personal identifiers only and converted all other AEO claims — including Trulieve's asserted trade secrets — to the less-restrictive "Confidential" category, effective March 16 absent a stay. *3–4. Trulieve sought judicial review under § 41-22-20, Ala. Code 1975, and related injunctive and mandamus relief. *4. The circuit court denied a stay and dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Trulieve appealed. *5.
Reviewing jurisdiction de novo, the court holds that the circuit court has jurisdiction under § 41-22-20(a), which makes a preliminary agency ruling immediately reviewable "if review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy." *5. Alabama law extends robust protection to trade secrets, and improper disclosure cannot be remedied after the fact — "the proverbial bell cannot be unrung." *6 (quoting Ex parte Miltope Corp., 823 So. 2d 640, 644-45 (Ala. 2001)). Ex parte Michelin North America, Inc., 161 So. 3d 164 (Ala. 2014) and Southeast Cannabis Co., [Ms. CL-2024-0300, Dec. 20, 2024] ––– So. 3d ––––, –––– (Ala. Civ. App. 2024) likewise confirm that post-judgment review is inadequate where disclosure would cause irreparable harm. *7. Although the immediate-review exception is narrow, Trulieve presented sufficient evidence that the information ordered disclosed could be trade secrets whose release could harm its ability to compete. *7. Therefore, the court holds that the circuit court has jurisdiction to review its order. *6-7.
The court declines Trulieve's request to vacate the circuit court’s order or to direct the ALJ to reject the challenges to Trulieve’s trade-secret claims. Because the circuit court dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, it never exercised review under the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act (“AAPA”). *8. Accordingly, having determined that the circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction, the court remands for additional proceedings under the AAPA. *8–9.