The Drug Enforcement Administration has withdrawn a lawsuit filed by a group of doctors in support of drug policy reform. They alleged that the DEA had made improper decisions regarding the selection of witnesses and communication during the marijuana rescheduling procedure. The organization stated that part of the reasoning for dropping the lawsuit was to prevent “more delays” in already-stalled procedures.
About two months after Doctors for Drug Policy Reform (D4DPR) filed the suit with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the non-profit organization notified the court last week that it would no longer be pursuing the case—at least for now.
After submitting the dismissal motion, the court granted the request without prejudice. D4DPR says this allows it to resume the legal case in future if DEA decides not to go forward with their proposal to reclassify Cannabis as a Schedule III Drug under the Controlled Substances Act.
D4DPR touts the “previously-reserved DEA communication” to certain selected witnesses to be included in the administrative hearings relating to the rescheduling of the process.
According to a group press release issued on Monday, documents revealed as part of court proceedings provided transparency into the process. They also showed that DEA had engaged in communication with several applicants prior to formal selections.
Bryon Adinoff, D4DPR’s president, stated that “this disclosure was an important win for transparency, accountability, and openness.” The cannabis community has questioned the DEA’s objectivity for years, and this document confirms those concerns. Our goal was to expose the agency’s improper conduct—and we succeeded.”
In the meantime, DEA has been unable to reschedule its process due to a separate challenge by witnesses in favor of reform. The group said that retaining their lawsuit would have “caused more delays.” Having achieved its “core objectives” to force transparency, the group decided to drop the petition.
Adinoff added, “We are committed to advocating a drug policy based on evidence.” This legal action exposed flaws within the DEA process, and highlighted the need for a transparent, scientific approach to the scheduling of drugs.
In the legal action that has now been withdrawn, the issue was that Anne Milgram, then DEA Administrator at the time of Biden’s administration had only selected 25 applicants out of over 160 who wanted to offer input regarding the rescheduling proposals.
The attorneys representing D4DPR – one of those groups who were denied participant designation for the hearings – said that there was substantial proof that DEA’s conduct was illegal. Ex parte The communications were made with the prohibitionists “to create an evidence-based record to allow the court to reject its proposed regulation to reschedule cannabis.”
The DEA was supposed to be the one who pushed for the rescheduling rules, but it has been repeatedly questioned about its position on the issue. Part of that comes down to the fact that then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, and not Milgram, signed the notice of proposed rulemaking—breaking with administrative precedent in drug rescheduling decisions.
D4DPR filed a separate request to the Federal Appeals Court seeking a stay on the proceeding before DEA Administrative Law judge John Mulrooney made his ruling delaying the rescheduling of hearings. And another 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.
Meanwhile, DEA notified Mulrooney earlier this month that the marijuana rescheduling process is still on hold—with no future actions currently scheduled as the matter sits before the acting administrator, who has called cannabis a “gateway drug” and linked its use to psychosis.
It’s not clear what this will mean for rescheduling. It’s not clear what this means for the fate of rescheduling.
Among other things, Maltz subscribes to the “gateway drug” theory for marijuana and believes most people living in states that have legalized cannabis will continue to obtain it from illicit sources such as cartels due to high taxes in regulated markets.
Originally, hearings were set to commence on January 21, but those were cancelled when Mulrooney granted the appeal motion.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department told a federal court in January that it should pause a lawsuit challenging DEA’s marijuana rescheduling process after the agency judge canceled the hearings.
Also in January, Mulrooney condemned DEA over its “unprecedented and astonishing” defiance of a key directive related to evidence it is seeking to use in the marijuana rescheduling proposal.
It was the DEA’s insistent digital submission of tens or thousands of public commentaries it had received as a response to its proposed rule for moving cannabis to Schedule 3.
Mulrooney didn’t hesitate to call out DEA on various procedural errors throughout this rescheduling.
For example, in December he criticized the agency for making a critical “blunder” in its effort to issue subpoenas to force Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials to testify in hearings—but he allowed the agency to fix the error and ultimately granted the request.
Public interest in the rescheduling process has been high. Although moving marijuana to Schedule III won’t make it legal at the federal level, this reform will allow cannabis-licensed businesses to claim federal tax breaks and eliminate certain research restrictions.
—
MEDCAN24 has been tracking the hundreds of bills relating to cannabis, psychedelics or drug policies that have passed through state legislatures as well as Congress in this past year. Patreon subscribers who donate at least $25/month have access to the interactive maps and charts as well as our hearing calendar.
Discover more about the marijuana bills tracker. Become a patron on Patreon for access.
—
Meanwhile, two GOP senators introduced a bill in February that would continue to block marijuana businesses from taking federal tax deductions under Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code 280E—even if it’s ultimately rescheduled.
The new leadership of the DEA, under Trump’s administration, is another factor that complicates the situation.
Trump’s nominee to serve as DEA administrator, Terrance Cole, has previously voiced concerns about the dangers of marijuana and linked its use to higher suicide risk among youth.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the United States. He has been vocal before about his support of legalizing marijuana and for psychedelics as therapy. But during his Senate confirmation process in February, he said that he would defer to DEA on marijuana rescheduling in his new role.
Former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL)—Trump’s first pick for U.S. attorney general this term before he withdrew from consideration—said recently that “meaningful” marijuana reform is “on the horizon” under the current administration, praising the president’s “leadership” in supporting rescheduling.
The Senate approved the choice of Pam Bondi, the former Florida Attorney-General, to head the DOJ after Gaetz resigned from the running. During her confirmation hearings, Bondi declined to say how she planned to navigate key marijuana policy issues. As attorney general of Florida, Bondi opposed the legalization of medical marijuana.
Former officials with DEA and HHS said this week that, without proactive advocacy for marijuana rescheduling from Trump personally, the process could stall indefinitely.
Supporters of rescheduling got an unwelcome update this month, however, as the White House Office of Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) released a report that outlined the administration’s top drug policy priorities for Trump’s first year of his second term—and it notably did not mention rescheduling or other cannabis reforms.
An industry-funded political committee (PAC), which is funded by the marijuana business, has recently attacked Biden’s record on cannabis policy as well as Canada. Ads promoted sometimes false claims about the former administration and argued for Trump’s ability to deliver.
Please read below the D4DPR’s latest court filings against DEA.
Pennsylvania Governor Will Include Marijuana Legalization Within His Budget But A Top GOP Senator Is Still Skeptical
Rawpixel, Philip Steffan and other photographers provided the images.
MEDCAN24 would not be possible without the support of readers. Consider a Patreon subscription if our marijuana advocacy journalism is what you use to keep informed.
