A Drug Enforcement Administration judge has ordered the agency to respond to new allegations that it opposes the Biden administration’s marijuana rescheduling proposal that it is supposed to be defending, and that it had additional improper communications with opponents of the reform.
Just one day after a motion outlining the allegations was filed by several witnesses set to participate in hearings that begin later in January, DEA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John Mulrooney issued a briefing order on January 7, mandating that the agency reply within a week.
Village Farms International, Hemp for Victory, the Connecticut Office of the Cannabis Ombudsman, Ellen Brown and My Doc App are ultimately asking the judge to remove DEA as the proponent of the proposed rule to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
“The Government is herein ORDERED to file a response” by January 13.
“The Motion for Reconsideration requests a series of relief related to alleged improper ex parte communications between the Agency and other actors,” Mulrooney said. “The Government is herein ORDERED to file a response to the Motion to Reconsider” by January 13.
Part of the pro-rescheduling participants’ motion addresses a new declaration submitted to the ALJ by a DEA official the previous week, wherein the agency pharmacologist seemed to question the basis of the reclassification proposal by echoing “anti-rescheduling talking points in attempting to show that marijuana has a high abuse potential and no currently accepted medical use,” the cannabis groups said in their latest motion.
It says the DEA based its analysis on a legal test that was previously rejected by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), and the agency’s “defiance of OLC’s binding opinion is stunning proof of its open hostility to the Proposed Rule.”
Specifically, when assessing whether marijuana has currently accepted medical value, the DEA used a five-factor review that OLC had described as “impermissibly narrow,” running counter to the two-factor review standard applied by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reach the conclusion to recommend rescheduling.
What’s more, the attorneys said the timing of the DEA’s declaration filing is further evidence that the DEA opposes the policy change, noting that the agency was statutorily required to submit any relevant data on the proposed rule before HHS carried out its scientific review and the rulemaking process was formally initiated.
The motion then alleges that “additional damning evidence of ex parte and undisclosed communications has emerged,” with the DEA failing to disclose nearly 100 requests to participate in the upcoming hearings, as well as “communication and coordination with at least one anti-rescheduling DP [designated participant], the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.”
“DEA has worked to stack the deck against the Proposed Rule by favoring anti-rescheduling parties in its selection of hearing participants.”
One of the previously undisclosed requests to participate in the hearing came from the state of Colorado, which was denied by the DEA despite the state’s extensive background in regulating cannabis. Yet the attorney general of Nebraska was permitted to serve as an anti-rescheduling witness.
“This new evidence confirms that DEA has worked to stack the deck against the Proposed Rule by favoring anti-rescheduling parties in its selection of hearing participants and obstructing a balanced and thoughtful process based on science and evidence,” the filing says.
The DEA judge rejected the cannabis groups’ earlier request to remove the agency as the proponent of the rescheduling rule, but he did seem to put weight into separate allegations that it engaged in unlawful communication with another DP, the prohibitionist group Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM).
Relatedly, a federal judge recently dismissed a lawsuit seeking to compel the DEA to turn over its communications with the anti-cannabis organization.
Additionally, the latest motion asserts that recently published documents reveal that DEA lists another anti-drug group that’s participating in the hearing—Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA)—”as a resource for information on marijuana.”
Meanwhile, the DEA ALJ recently denied a cannabis research company’s request to allow it to add a young medical marijuana patient and advocate as a witness in the upcoming rescheduling hearing.
Mulrooney separately said in December that the DEA made a critical “blunder” in its effort to issue subpoenas to force Food and Drug Administration officials to testify in the rescheduling process—but he allowed the agency to fix the error and ultimately granted the request.
Also, one of the nation’s leading marijuana industry associations asked the judge to clarify whether it will be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the DEA during the upcoming hearings on the cannabis rescheduling proposal.
While moving marijuana to Schedule III wouldn’t federally legalize it, it would free up licensed cannabis businesses to take federal tax deductions and remove certain research barriers.
Further, a coalition of health professionals that advocates for cannabis reform recently asked that the DEA judge halt future marijuana rescheduling hearings until a federal court is able to address a series of allegations they’re raising about the agency’s witness selection process.
That came on the same day Mulrooney issued a ruling that laid out the timeline for merit-based hearings on the rescheduling proposal.
Doctors for Drug Policy Reform (D4DPR) requested that the DEA judge stay the hearings—which are currently set to commence on January 21—pending a review from the US District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit. A separate organization that was also denied participation, Veterans Action Council (VAC), similarly filed a petition with the same court in December to request a review of the agency’s decision to exclude it from the proceedings.
The rescheduling proceedings have generated significant public interest. While moving marijuana to Schedule III wouldn’t federally legalize it, the reform would free up licensed cannabis businesses to take federal tax deductions and remove certain research barriers.
In a prehearing statement submitted in November, the DEA previewed the testimony its two agency witnesses plan to provide at the upcoming hearing—without clarifying where it stands on the rescheduling proposal.
While the initial preliminary hearing happened in December, the merit-based proceedings were delayed until at least early 2025 after Mulrooney notified the DEA that it provided insufficient information about the 25 selected witnesses that DEA Administrator Anne Milgram submitted.
Separately, the DEA judge has also denied a request from a cannabis and psychedelics researcher to postpone the upcoming rescheduling hearing over the agency’s alleged “improper blocking” of witnesses, while arguing that the process should be halted at least until President-elect Donald Trump’s administration comes into power so it can review the rulemaking.
Mulrooney also rejected the VAC’s petition to participate in the rescheduling hearing, which the organization called a “travesty of justice” that excludes key voices that would be affected by the potential policy change. That group has asked the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to intervene on its behalf.
For what it’s worth, Vice President Kamala Harris said recently that part of the reason for the delay in the administration’s marijuana rescheduling effort is federal bureaucracy that “slows things down,” including at the DEA.
In March, Harris also expressed some frustration with the bureaucratic process of rescheduling marijuana, prior to the DOJ’s formal recommendation, calling on the DEA to expediently finish the job.
While the Biden–Harris administration facilitated the review that led to the DOJ rescheduling proposal, Trump has also voiced support for the reform.
Photograph via Picryl/Public Domain
This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on X and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.
Show Comments