Doctors Drop Marijuana Rescheduling Lawsuit That Alleged DEA Misconduct In Rescheduling Process, In Part To Avoid ‘More Delay’

A group of doctors who support drug policy reform has withdrawn its lawsuit against the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that alleged improper witness selection and communications during the ongoing marijuana rescheduling process. Part of the reason for dropping the case was to avoid “more delay” in the already-stalled proceedings, the organization said.

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.

Days after submitting the motion to dismiss the case, the court granted it without prejudice, which D4DPR said enables it to take up the legal challenge again in the future if DEA ultimately declines to move forward with the proposal to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

In the interim, D4DPR is touting the disclosure of “previously withheld DEA communications” with certain witnesses selected to participate in administrative hearings related to the rescheduling process.

The group said in a press release on Monday that the documents that were disclosed as part of the court proceedings “provided transparency into the selection process and revealed that DEA engaged in communications with several applicants before formal selections were made.”

“This disclosure was a major win for transparency and accountability,” Bryon Adinoff, president of D4DPR, said. “The cannabis advocacy community has long questioned the DEA’s objectivity, and these documents confirm those concerns. Our goal was to expose the agency’s improper conduct—and we succeeded.”

But with DEA’s rescheduling process stalled indefinitely as it’s tied up in a separate administrative challenge from pro-reform witnesses, the group said maintaining its lawsuit “could have resulted in more delay.” So having met its “core objective” of forcing transparency, it moved to dismiss the petition.

“We remain committed to advocating for evidence-based drug policy,” Adinoff said. “This legal effort exposed fundamental flaws in the DEA’s process and reinforced the need for a more transparent, science-driven approach to drug scheduling.”

At issue in the now-withdrawn legal challenge was the fact that then-DEA Administrator Anne Milgram selected just 25 of more than 160 applicants that sought to provide input on the rescheduling proposal that happened under the Biden administration.

According to attorneys represented by D4DPR, which was among the groups denied designated participant status for the hearings, there was substantial evidence that DEA’s ex parte communications with prohibitionist witnesses were “motivated by the impermissible goal of creating an evidentiary record that would allow it to reject the proposed rule to reschedule marijuana.”

DEA is meant to serve as the proponent of the rescheduling rule, but the agency has faced repeated questions over its actual stance on the proposal. 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.

Prior to DEA Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney’s ruling that delayed the rescheduling hearings, D4DPR separately filed a request with the federal appeals court seeking a stay of the proceedings. 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.

What this means for the fate of rescheduling isn’t clear. But if the decision-making is left up to DEA Acting Administrator Derek Maltz, it likely wouldn’t bode especially well for supporters 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.

At issue was DEA’s insistence on digitally submitting tens of thousands of public comments it received in response to the proposed rule to move cannabis to Schedule III.

Mulrooney hasn’t been shy about calling out DEA over various procedural missteps throughout this rescheduling process.

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.

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.

—
Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get 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.

Beyond the hearing delays, another complicating factor is the change in leadership at DEA under the Trump administration.

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.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was previously vocal about his support for legalizing cannabis, as well as psychedelics 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.

After Gaetz withdrew from consideration to lead DOJ, Trump then picked former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (R) to run the department, and the Senate confirmed that choice. During her confirmation hearings, Bondi declined to say how she planned to navigate key marijuana policy issues. And as state attorney general, she opposed efforts to legalize medical cannabis.

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.

A marijuana industry-funded political action committee (PAC) recently attacked Biden’s cannabis policy record as well as the nation of Canada, with ads promoting sometimes misleading claims about the last administration while making the case that Trump can deliver on reform.

Read the latest legal filings in the D4DPR lawsuit against DEA below: 

Pennsylvania Governor Will Put Marijuana Legalization In His Budget, But Top GOP Senator Remains Skeptical

Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel and Philip Steffan.

The post Doctors Drop Marijuana Rescheduling Lawsuit That Alleged DEA Misconduct In Rescheduling Process, In Part To Avoid ‘More Delay’ appeared first on Marijuana Moment.