Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Hearings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Licensees say OMMA plan to replace administrative law judges risks fair hearings
Summary
Multiple licensees and lawyers told the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority the proposed switch from independent administrative law judges to OMMA hearing examiners would undermine due process, limit discovery and push disputes into costly district‑court appeals.
The Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority heard sustained criticism on procedural changes that would move contested license cases from independent administrative law judges to hearing examiners employed or appointed by the authority.
“Changing from an administrative law judge to a hearing examiner raises concerns about due process for licenses,” said Matthew Phillips, CEO of OKCTL, during the OMMA public comment hearing. Phillips asked the authority to explain why the change is proposed and what it would mean for independence and qualifications of adjudicators.
Attorney Stephanie Davis of Amber Law Group, who previously worked in OMMA’s legal department, said the change would remove the separation between prosecutor and judge. “This eliminates the separation between prosecutor and judge,” Davis said, arguing that OMMA would investigate cases, present charges and then rely on agency employees to decide outcomes. She warned that restricting discovery rights and shortening deadlines would force more licensees to seek costly district‑court reviews.
Small‑farm operators and lab representatives echoed the concerns. John Byrd of Oklahoma Knights Craft Cannabis said the current administrative system already produces near‑automatic losses for respondents and asked OMMA not to substitute an internal hearing body for neutral adjudicators.
OMMA staff told the room that every commenter will receive a written response. The public comment hearing produced no vote or formal action; commenters requested that OMMA either retain ALJs or explain safeguards that would preserve impartiality and discovery rights.
What happens next: OMMA will publish written responses to commenters and proceed through the rulemaking record; any change to adjudication procedures would take effect only if adopted through the permanent‑rule process and following required notice periods.
