Unfortunately, as of this moment, we do not know. DPHHS is considering this question and will post information on its website later today. There have been no official statements by the state’s attorney general’s office.
It is a complicated answer for a number of reasons and full of uncertainty. The Court’s ruling says the judge’s decision is “reversed and remanded.” Does the word “reversed” mean the injunction automatically goes away? It is simply not clear. Add to this the fact that the injunction included things that were not considered by the Court, such as the provision allowing warrantless searches, the limitations on the number of patients a doctor can see, and the ban on advertising. So if the decision invalidates the injunction, does it reach beyond the matters on appeal? That is unlikely.
One way to read this is that the injunction was not clearly lifted, so it could still be in effect. Many would consider that a risky assumption to make because making the wrong assumption exposes otherwise legal providers under state law with felony charges for operating outside SB423. Hopefully once we get guidance from DPHHS or perhaps law enforcement, we will get closer to a practical solution in the short term.
The solution in the long term, of course, is to overturn this law. It should be clear to all MTCIA supporters that SB423 is repeal in disguise, and without the injunction in place, its true purpose is all too clear.
As soon as we get more information, we will post it here!