DEA Posts Details On Next Week’s Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing, Including Live Stream And Documents Portal

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued an advisory on Tuesday to notify the public about an initial hearing on the Biden administration’s marijuana rescheduling proposal that’s scheduled for next week.

The preliminary hearing on Monday, December 2 “will serve as a procedural day to address legal and logistical issues and discuss future dates for the evidentiary hearing on the merits,” DEA said. “No witness testimony will be offered or received at this time.”

While only designated participants and credentialed media will be able to attend the hearing in person, DEA provided a link to a streaming page so anyone can follow the proceedings remotely.

The agency also included background information on the proposal to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). And it separately made a legal docket publicly accessible on an administrative law judge (ALJ) page so people can view key filings in the rescheduling case.

If the rule is finalized, “the regulatory controls applicable to schedule III controlled substances would apply, as appropriate, along with existing marijuana-specific requirements and any additional controls that might be implemented, including those that might be implemented to meet U.S. treaty obligations,” DEA said in the new notice about the upcoming hearing.

“If marijuana is transferred into Schedule III, the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, and possession of marijuana would remain subject to the applicable criminal prohibitions of the CSA,” DEA said. “Any drugs containing a substance within the CSA’s definition of ‘marijuana’ would also remain subject to the applicable prohibitions in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”

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.

But while DEA is designated as the “proponent” of the proposed rule, there’s been skepticism about where the agency’s leadership actually stands on the issue and whether it may insert bias into the hearing process.

Part of the reason for that skepticism is because Attorney General Merrick Garland—and not DEA Administrator Anne Milgram—signed the proposed rule, breaking with precedent. The drug agency also said repeatedly throughout the notice of proposed rulemaking that it needed additional information before reaching a conclusion about whether a Schedule III reclassification is appropriate.

In a prehearing statement submitted to ALJ John Mulrooney on Tuesday, DEA previewed the testimony its own witnesses plan to provide at the upcoming hearing—without clarifying where it stands on the rescheduling proposal.

The agency also said that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—which carried out a scientific review that informed the proposal to move cannabis to Schedule III—“rejected” its request to provide witnesses.

While the initial preliminary hearing is scheduled for December 2, the merit-based proceedings were delayed until at least early 2025 after Mulrooney notified DEA that it provided insufficient information about the 25 selected witnesses that Milgram submitted.

Meanwhile, DEA on Monday denied allegations raised in a recent motion from pro-rescheduling witnesses that it was involved in unlawful communications with a prohibitionist witness with the group Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), which separately denied the allegations.

Separately, the judge last week 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 a veterans group’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.

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 DEA.

In March, Harris also expressed some frustration with the bureaucratic process of rescheduling marijuana, prior to DOJ’s formal recommendation, calling on 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.

In Congress, numerous lawmakers have shared their own perspectives on the proposed reform with DEA and DOJ since the Schedule III announcement was made.

In August, for example, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) raised concerns about the Biden administration’s justification for recommending marijuana rescheduling, demanding answers to questions from federal agencies about how they arrived at that decision in what he described as a rushed and unconventional administrative process.

A week earlier, top Democratic senators—including  Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)—sent a separate letter to DOJ’s Garland and DEA’s Milgram urging the agencies to ”promptly finalize” the rule to reschedule marijuana.

While rescheduling would remove certain research barriers and free up state-licensed cannabis business to take federal tax deductions under the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code known as 280E, it would not federally legalize marijuana, as the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has made known in multiple recent reports.

Meanwhile, two additional congressional lawmakers have joined the ranks of GOP members who are challenging what they say is the “unusual” process that led the Biden administration to propose rescheduling marijuana, expressing concern about how the review was carried out and demanding answers.

Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) condemned the Biden administration’s push to reclassify marijuana, as well as legislative efforts to enact bipartisan cannabis banking reform, because he says the policy changes would “prop up this immoral industry” and give a “green light to the evil that comes from drug use.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) also blasted the Biden administration over what he described as repeated refusals from federal agencies to brief Congress on its plans and justification for rescheduling marijuana, which he argues fuels speculation that the proposed policy change is politically motivated.

Similarly, 25 GOP congressional lawmakers sent a public comment letter in July opposing the administration’s planned rescheduling of marijuana, specifically alleging the government’s recommendation was based on politics rather than science.

Federal Appeals Court Hears Challenge To Gun Ban For Marijuana Consumers