Splash Farms, Inc., et al. v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority; et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma grants in part an emergency motion for preliminary injunction brought by At Joy Growers and its owners. The court enjoins enforcement of an Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control order to the extent it prevents At Joy from continuing its licensed outdoor marijuana-growing operation, while leaving the shutdown of its indoor growing and processing operations unaffected. The court finds imminent irreparable harm and a sufficient likelihood of success on substantive due process and related constitutional claims.

Holdings

1. A party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm, a favorable balance of equities, and that the injunction serves the public interest.
2. The requested injunction was prohibitory, not mandatory, because it restored the parties' last uncontested position before the OBNDD Final Order became effective as to At Joy's outdoor grow.
3. Plaintiffs demonstrated imminent, certain, great, actual, and non-theoretical irreparable harm absent an injunction.
4. Plaintiffs showed a sufficient likelihood of success on their substantive due process claim because the blanket revocation of At Joy's registration as applied to the outdoor grow was likely an extremely arbitrary deprivation of a protected property interest.
5. The evidence presented colorable claims and supported a sufficient likelihood of success for preliminary-relief purposes on equal protection and procedural due process theories.
6. At the preliminary-injunction stage, defendants did not establish that plaintiffs' failure to seek reconsideration or directly appeal the OBNDD Final Order barred their federal constitutional claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction protecting At Joy's outdoor-growing operation.
2. Whether the requested injunction was mandatory and therefore subject to heightened scrutiny, or prohibitory relief restoring the last uncontested status.
3. Whether plaintiffs showed a sufficient likelihood of success on their substantive due process claim based on the allegedly arbitrary revocation of a protected business registration.
4. Whether the evidence also supported colorable equal protection and procedural due process claims.
5. Whether failure to seek reconsideration or direct state-court review barred plaintiffs' federal constitutional claims at the preliminary-injunction stage.
6. Whether federal illegality principles barred equitable relief for a state-licensed medical-marijuana business.

Disposition

other