Judge Criticizes Plaintiffs’ Court Choice in Lawsuit Challenging Federal CBD Program
- A federal judge criticized plaintiffs' counsel for seeking to block the Medicare CBD program but wanting to participate remotely, emphasizing they should be prepared for in-person hearings since they chose his court.
- Judge Trevor N. McFadden allowed remote participation for the emergency hearing but admonished plaintiffs’ counsel to be ready for future in-person court appearances.
- The lawsuit aims to block a limited pilot Medicare CBD program that would fund up to $500 worth of CBD products with up to 3mg THC per serving, set to start in April.
- The emergency hearing is proceeding as scheduled, focusing on whether the court will grant relief to halt the program before it begins, though the judge has not ruled on the case merits yet.
A federal judge today criticized counsel for the plaintiffs seeking to block the new Medicare CBD program, saying that because they chose to file the case in his court they should be prepared to attend in-person hearings going forward, even as Judge Trevor N. McFadden approved their request to appear by telephone or videoconference at the emergency hearing.
At the same time, the judge noted that the plaintiffs chose to sue in his court “as is their right,” but said that decision means their counsel should be prepared to attend in-person hearings there moving forward. The order says plaintiffs’ counsel are therefore admonished to be ready for in-person appearances at the court going forward.
The update adds a new wrinkle to the case as opponents of the policy push for emergency relief before the CBD program takes effect in April. The lawsuit asks the court to block implementation of the limited pilot, which which will fund up to $500 worth of CBD products for certain Medicare programs, with up to 3mg of THC allowed per serving.
Although the order does not address the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, it does confirm that the emergency hearing is moving ahead today, with plaintiffs’ counsel allowed to participate remotely for this appearance. The judge’s language, however, suggests some frustration with the plaintiffs’ expectations regarding how the case would proceed after choosing that venue.
With the hearing now set to move forward, attention will shift to whether the court is willing to grant the emergency request to halt the program before implementation.