The case, brought in May by Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill (R) and the attorneys general of Indiana and Nebraska, claims the officials will “show that this agency action fails to comport with the requirements” of federal law, “was improperly promulgated and was otherwise procedurally improper,” “exceeds or is inconsistent with pertinent authority” and “ultimately, that this agency action is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.”

“Petitioners thus ask that this Court declare unlawful and vacate this final agency action,” states the filing with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

But on May 29, Murrill filed a motion saying that “Petitioner State of Louisiana respectfully moves under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), as applied through Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 20, to dismiss Louisiana as a petitioner in this proceeding.”

“This motion seeks dismissal of Louisiana only. Respondents do not oppose this motion,” it said. “Louisiana thus respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Louisiana only from this proceeding, with each party to bear its own costs.”

It is not clear why Murrill first joined, and then days later withdrew from, the case. Representatives from the attorney general’s office did not immediately respond to Marijuana Moment’s request for comment for this story.

In late May the court consolidated the state attorneys generals’ complaint with a separate suit that was filed earlier in May by prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA).

Also in late May, a coalition of anti-marijuana activists, substance use professionals, doctors and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation filed an additional lawsuit seeking to challenge the Trump administration’s marijuana rescheduling move.

In May, a House committee voted to block federal officials from taking further steps toward rescheduling.

Under an action announced by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April, marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license immediately moved from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, as will any marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration. An administrative hearing scheduled for June will consider broader cannabis rescheduling, including for adult-use products.

“The AG Rescheduling Order violates the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 to 559, and section 201 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. § 811, exceeds the statutory authority of the Attorney General under the CSA, and is otherwise arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law,” SAM and NDASA’s brief two-page petition challenging the rescheduling action claimed.

It was signed by attorneys at Torridon Law PLCC, where former US Attorney General William Barr, who led the DOJ during Trump’s first term in office, is a partner.

SAM had announced in January that it was hiring Barr’s firm to legally combat cannabis rescheduling after Trump signed an executive order directing officials to complete the process expeditiously.

Named defendants in both now-consolidated suits are the DOJ, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Blanche and DEA Administrator Terrance Cole.

On May 22 a federal judge dismissed separate litigation SAM brought to challenge a new Trump administration initiative to cover up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products each year for eligible Medicare patients.

Meanwhile, a House committee earlier in May voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling.

Read Louisiana’s motion to withdraw from the marijuana rescheduling lawsuit below:

Image via Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board

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.

The post Louisiana Abruptly Drops Out of DOJ Marijuana Rescheduling Lawsuit appeared first on Filter.

In a letter to Colorado Governor Jared Polis (D) dated December 8, DOJ Civil Rights Division Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon wrote that the investigation will look for “pattern or practice” rights violations. Specifically, whether people in custody have access to adequate medical care and “safe and sanitary” housing, and whether youth in DYS facilities are provided “adequate nutrition” and protection from excessive force.

Lastly, DOJ “will also consider whether Colorado violates prisoners’ and detainees’ right to free exercise of religion by housing biological males in units designated for females.”

Since Trump took office in January, the DOJ has commenced only one new special investigation of law enforcement or corrections departments. That began in March, and focuses on whether the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is violating the “Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, including by requiring them to endure lengthy wait times when applying for concealed handgun licenses.”

In 2024, the department launched three “pattern or practice” investigations involving a prison system—California Women’s Prisons, Trousdale Turner Correctional Center in Tennessee and Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice.

DOJ launches investigation into Colorado prison conditions.

Thank you, ⁦@AGPamBondi⁩ and ⁦⁦@HarmeetKDhillon⁩

If Colorado has been treating Tina Peters fairly, then I’m sure there’s nothing to hide… https://t.co/2olupOEbrx

— Chad Mizelle (@chad_mizelle) December 9, 2025

Prisons overwhelmingly house people according to their sex assigned at birth, even contradicting their own policies that support using gender identity instead.

In 2024, following a class action lawsuit brought by trans women whom CDOC had housed in men’s prisons, a groundbreaking consent decree required the department to open an “Integration Unit” at a women’s facility, and a “Voluntary Transgender Unit” at a men’s facility. The former serves as short-term housing for trans women entering the system, and the latter allows them to be housed together if they choose.

Trump and various members of his administration have been openly linking the DOJ announcement to their support of Tina Peters, the former clerk of Mesa County, Colorado, who facilitated unauthorized access to voting machines and data in the wake of the 2020 presidential election. 

In October 2024 Peters was convicted of multiple felonies and sentenced to a total of about nine years, making her the first and so far only person to serve prison time as a result of Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election results. None of her convictions are federal, so Trump doesn’t have the authority to commute her sentence; Gov. Polis has declined to do so. Earlier in 2025, Peters filed a request to be released from prison while her appeal is pending. It was dismissed by a federal judge on December 8, the same day the DOJ announced its investigation.

Peters is currently incarcerated at La Vista Correctional Facility, which is one of the facilities named in Dhillon’s December 8 letter and which happens to have the same warden as Youthful Offender Center (YOS)—which is also at the center of the investigation. YOS is not a DYS facility. It’s a medium-security prison for youth between ages 14 and 19 whose convictions are considered violent, and who have been sentenced as adults. 

YOS has been in the news due to increasingly dire complaints about its policies around food. Portions and caloric intake requirements have shrunk, and food packages as well as canteen purchases are only authorized for those who’ve reached the least-restrictive level of custody.

In November, one person housed at YOS was hospitalized for malnutrition and told by doctors that he needed to double his food intake; upon returning to YOS he was not given more food than before. Shortly after, he went into renal failure and had to be flown to a Denver hospital; he’d lost 42 lbs in six weeks.

YOS has since enacted a policy change allowing everyone in custody to purchase food from the canteen, but by one estimate about 40 percent of the population can’t afford to do so. 

Recent reports by the Child Protection Ombudsman of Colorado and the nonprofit Disability Law Colorado described DYS, meanwhile, as subjecting the youth in its custody to “strip searches,” “physical force,” “excessive restraint” and “seclusion.” One facility was shut down in September due to “basic safety” failures. It appears to be quietly reopening.

Photograph of Platte Valley Youth Services Center via Colorado Department of Human Services

The post DOJ Opens Wildcard Investigation Into Colorado Prisons, Youth Centers appeared first on Filter.