Long-held suspicions that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is staunchly opposed to rescheduling marijuana appear to be confirmed by recent court documents. Allegations suggest that the DEA manipulated the public process to ensure the drug remains classified under Schedule 1 rather than moving to Schedule 3 under federal law.
Court Documents Unveil Alleged Bias
A lawsuit filed by the group Doctors for Drug Policy Reform (DDPR) on February 17 asserts that the DEA deliberately excluded key stakeholders from the rescheduling process. According to documents disclosed through this legal challenge, the DEA:
- Considered 163 applicants but only selected 25 based on undisclosed criteria.
- Rejected participation requests from officials in New York and Colorado—two states that support rescheduling.
- Assisted nearly a dozen groups opposing marijuana reclassification.
These revelations, which mark the most extensive disclosure of the DEA’s actions in the rescheduling process, suggest a predetermined outcome.
Legal Challenge Against DEA’s Actions
Dr. Bryon Adinoff, a Colorado-based addiction psychiatrist and president of DDPR, expressed concerns about the legitimacy of the process. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, seeks either a redo of the witness selection process or an explanation of the DEA’s methods.
“If the process was fixed, we need to stop it or restart it,” Adinoff stated, emphasizing that proceeding under the current conditions would likely lead to an inevitable rejection of rescheduling.
Potential Impact on the Cannabis Industry
Rescheduling marijuana would bring significant financial relief to legal cannabis businesses, which currently face heavy tax burdens due to their classification under Schedule 1. The industry, valued at $32 billion, has long sought this change, which could also encourage further cannabis policy reforms in Congress.
Initially, some experts believed the DEA might approve marijuana’s reclassification after the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determined in August 2023 that cannabis has a “currently accepted medical use.” A Congressional Research Service report from September 2023 also highlighted that the DEA is legally bound to follow health and science recommendations from other federal agencies.
However, skepticism grew when the Justice Department published its proposal in May 2024 to move marijuana to Schedule 3. A memo from the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel in April 2024 revealed internal disputes within the DEA over the rescheduling standard used by the HHS.
A Controversial and Uncertain Future
The marijuana rescheduling debate, initiated by President Joe Biden in October 2022, has been described as “the most consequential rulemaking the DEA has ever attempted.” Former DEA administrators emphasized this in a letter released as part of the lawsuit, noting that rescheduling would mark the most significant relaxation of narcotics restrictions in the history of the Controlled Substances Act.
Hearings on the matter were initially set to conclude on March 6, but appeals have indefinitely delayed the process. Key decisions now rest on potential actions by former President Donald Trump and his appointed DEA administrator, Terrance Cole.
Accusations of a ‘Secret’ Selection Process
Court documents reveal that the DEA employed a “secret selection process” to craft an evidentiary record supporting the rejection of rescheduling. The agency allegedly dismissed participation requests from New York and Colorado while allowing a representative from Connecticut—who later withdrew—to participate.
Furthermore, the DEA sent “cure letters” to 12 applicants, requesting additional information to establish their eligibility. Notably, nine of these letters were sent to individuals or organizations opposing rescheduling, while only one went to a pro-cannabis entity—the University of California, San Diego’s Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR). Despite CMCR providing the requested details, the DEA ultimately denied its application without explanation.
Final Thoughts
These allegations reinforce concerns about the DEA’s impartiality in marijuana rescheduling. With the process now on hold and legal battles unfolding, the future of federal cannabis policy remains uncertain. The outcome of these proceedings could have lasting implications for the cannabis industry, policymakers, and advocates pushing for reform.