State v. Slusher
| Decision Date | 08 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | No. SC 99205,SC 99205 |
| Citation | 638 S.W.3d 496 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri EX REL. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SENIOR SERVICES, Appellant, v. Renee T. SLUSHER, Commissioner, Administrative Hearing Commission, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
The department was represented by James R. Layton of Tueth Keeney Cooper Mohan & Jackstadt PC in St. Louis, (314) 880-3600.
Kings Garden was represented by Joshua L. Hill of Newman, Comley & Ruth PC in Jefferson City, (573) 634-2266.
Harvest of Missouri LLC, which filed a brief as a friend of the Court, was represented by Anthony W. Bonuchi of Bonuchi Law LLC in Kansas City, (816) 944-3232.
The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (hereinafter, "Department") appeals the circuit court's judgment quashing its preliminary writ of prohibition and denying Department's petition for a permanent writ of prohibition. Department contends it cannot be compelled to disclose data submitted by medical marijuana license applicants because the Missouri Constitution requires it to keep that information confidential. The circuit court's judgment is affirmed.1
Kings Garden Midwest, LLC (hereinafter, "Kings Garden") applied for two medical marijuana cultivation facility licenses. Department denied both applications. Kings Garden appealed to the administrative hearing commission (hereinafter, "the AHC").
Kings Garden alleged its applications were subjected to an arbitrary and capricious scoring process in which other applicants received different scores for answers that were the same or substantially the same as the answers Kings Garden submitted. To prove this claim, Kings Garden requested Department to provide complete and unredacted copies of successful cultivation license applications in discovery.
Department objected, claiming the disclosure of this information would violate its constitutional mandate to maintain the confidentiality of information submitted by applicants and licensees. Kings Garden filed a motion to compel and limited its request to only those questions on the successful applications for which Kings Garden did not receive the full 10-point score. The AHC granted the motion to compel and ordered Department to produce substantially all of the documents Kings Garden requested. Department was provided the option of redacting applicants’ identifying information. The AHC also entered a protective order regarding the produced documents.
Department filed a petition for writ of prohibition, seeking the circuit court to bar enforcement of the AHC's order compelling the production of information. The circuit court entered a preliminary writ in prohibition ordering the AHC to "refrain from all action in the premises until further order." After briefing and argument, the circuit court quashed the preliminary writ and denied Department's petition for a permanent writ. Department appeals.
Proceedings in prohibition are governed by Rule 97. "A writ of prohibition may issue ‘to remedy an excess of authority, jurisdiction, or abuse of discretion where the lower court lacks the power to act as intended.’ " State ex rel. Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. May , 620 S.W.3d 96, 98 (Mo. banc 2021) (quoting State ex rel. Manion v. Elliott , 305 S.W.3d 462, 463 (Mo. banc 2010) ). The issuance of a writ of prohibition is discretionary. State ex rel. Helms v. Rathert , 624 S.W.3d 159, 163 (Mo. banc 2021). When the circuit court issues a preliminary order but later denies a permanent writ of prohibition, "the proper remedy is an appeal." State ex rel. Ashby Road Partners, LLC v. State Tax Comm'n , 297 S.W.3d 80, 83 (Mo. banc 2009).
"The validity of a provision of the Missouri Constitution is a question of law this Court reviews de novo. " Doyle v. Tidball , 625 S.W.3d 459, 463 (Mo. banc 2021). "Rules applicable to constitutional construction are the same as those applied to statutory construction, except that the former are given a broader construction, due to their more permanent character." Mo. Prosecuting Att'ys v. Barton Cnty. , 311 S.W.3d 737, 741 (Mo. banc 2010) (quoting Boone Cnty. Ct. v. State , 631 S.W.2d 321, 324 (Mo. banc 1982) ). "In interpreting this language, the Court must ensure the words of this provision bear the meaning they were understood to have in their proper context when Missouri voters adopted this provision." Hill v. Mo. Dep't of Conservation , 550 S.W.3d 463, 467 (Mo. banc 2018). "[E]very word contained in a constitutional provision has effect, meaning, and is not mere surplusage." State v. Honeycutt , 421 S.W.3d 410, 415 (Mo. banc 2013).
Department contends the circuit court erred in quashing the preliminary writ and denying its petition for a permanent writ of prohibition because it claims the AHC acted outside of its authority by compelling the disclosure of the requested applicant data to Kings Garden. Department argues it cannot be compelled to disclose data submitted by medical marijuana license applicants because the Missouri Constitution requires it to maintain the confidentiality of that information.
Following an initiative petition, article XIV of the Missouri Constitution was adopted in November 2018. Article XIV authorizes and regulates medical cannabis. The Missouri Constitution directs Department to administer the state's medical marijuana program, including granting or denying "state licenses ... for the cultivation, manufacture, dispensing, sale, testing, tracking, and transportation of marijuana for medical use as provided by law." Mo. Const. art. XIV, sec. 1.3(1)(a). Article XIV directs Department to make available to the public license application forms to operate "medical marijuana cultivation facilities, medical marijuana testing facilities, medical marijuana dispensary facilities, and medical marijuana-infused products manufacturing facilities." Mo. Const. art. XIV, sec. 1.3(6). Department may restrict the aggregate number of licenses granted in each category of medical marijuana cultivation, medical marijuana-infused products manufacturing, and medical marijuana dispensary facilities. Mo. Const. art. XIV, sec. 1.3(15)-(17).
In evaluating license applications, Department must determine whether applicants meet minimum standards described in 19 C.S.R. 30-95.025(4). When more qualified applicants apply than there are available licenses in the facility category, both the constitution and regulation provide for Department to "use a system of numerically scoring ten (10) additional evaluation criteria to rank the applications in each such license ... category against each other." 19 C.S.R. 30-95.025(4) ; Mo. Const. art. XIV, sec. 1.3(1)(h). In further discussing how the numerical scoring of evaluation criteria is to be conducted, the regulation reiterates, "Each type of facility ... application will be scored and ranked against the other applications of the same type." 19 C.S.R. 30-95.025(4)(C)2.A. Further, an applicant may appeal the denial of a license to the AHC. Mo. Const. art. XIV, sec. 1.3(23); 19 C.S.R. 30-95.025(6). After the exhaustion of administrative review, the denial is subject to judicial review. Mo. Const. art. XIV, sec. 1.3(23).
Department argues the intent of the voters in enacting article XIV, section 1.3(5) was to mandate that all information filed in medical marijuana license applications be kept strictly confidential and immune from disclosure under any circumstances, including, as in this case, responses to a discovery request in the appeal of a license denial. To support its argument, Department relies on State ex rel. Department of Social Services, Division of Children Services v. Tucker , 413 S.W.3d 646 (Mo. banc 2013). In Tucker , this Court examined whether the Children's Division could be compelled to produce information in discovery concerning hotline reports that section 210.150, RSMo Supp. 2012,2 mandated be kept confidential. After determining no exception to the general rule of confidentiality applied to allow disclosure of the information, this Court stated the statutorily mandated confidentiality "is not overcome by demonstrating relevance or the absence of a traditional evidentiary privilege." Id. at 648. While "the confidentiality mandated by section 210.150 does not establish a legal privilege," it does mandate that the Children's Division "keep confidential an entire body of information." Id. at 649. Thus, the information was not discoverable, and the circuit court abused its discretion in ordering its disclosure. Id.
The crucial distinction between Tucker and this case is that, while none of the exceptions to confidentiality set forth in section 210.150 applied to allow disclosure of the statutorily mandated confidential information, article XIV, section 1.3(5) expressly allows the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fitz-James v. Ashcroft
...accurate reading of the initiatives. Every word in a constitutional provision has effect and meaning, and is not mere surplusage. Slusher, 638 S.W.3d at 498; Pearson, S.W.3d at 48. The Secretary's argument seems to be that the purpose and probable effect of the proposed amendments are found......