A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) administrative law judge has informed the agency’s head that the marijuana rescheduling proposal is now her responsibility. The notice comes after the judge approved an appeal motion, effectively canceling the hearings initially planned for January 21.
Allegations Spark an Appeal Request
Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney sent a letter to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram explaining the circumstances surrounding the appeal. Several pro-rescheduling parties raised concerns that agency officials had collaborated with anti-rescheduling witnesses selected for the hearing. These allegations of behind-the-scenes communication prompted the request for an appeal.
Mulrooney granted the motion, halting proceedings and noting that the appeal challenges DEA’s position as the chief advocate for the proposed cannabis rescheduling. Critics argued that the alleged bias “irrevocably tainted” the process.
However, the judge clarified that no hearing or formal evidence review had occurred on these allegations. Instead, he recommended that all designated participants, from both sides of the rescheduling debate, be allowed to present arguments during the appeal process.
Missteps and Miscommunications Highlighted
The appeal process itself has not been without complications. In a separate order, Mulrooney addressed issues regarding the eligibility of certain appellants. Ellen Brown, one such participant, was deemed ineligible due to errors in filing communications, leaving “no viable plan” to reinstate her standing.
These procedural challenges have added layers of uncertainty to an already complex situation. Mulrooney emphasized that participants are now awaiting a ruling from DEA leadership to determine the next steps.
Broader Implications of the Delay
The appeal and subsequent hearing cancellation come as the Biden administration pushes for rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III. This move would represent a significant shift in federal cannabis policy, potentially easing restrictions on research and altering industry dynamics. However, the procedural delays, combined with allegations of misconduct, threaten to derail the initiative.
The situation is further complicated by the upcoming change in DEA leadership under President-elect Donald Trump. With a new administrator set to take over, the future of the rescheduling proposal remains unclear.
Mulrooney suggested that allowing the appeal at this stage could prevent further delays. He acknowledged the risk of appellate review finding errors in his analysis, which could lead to prolonged delays if the process were remanded.
Justice Department Weighs In
Separately, the Justice Department requested that a federal court pause a lawsuit challenging the DEA’s rescheduling process. The motion followed Mulrooney’s decision to cancel the hearings, arguing that the litigation’s focus had shifted due to the new developments.
Meanwhile, the judge continued to express frustration with DEA’s actions. He criticized the agency’s refusal to comply with a directive related to submitting tens of thousands of public comments on the proposed rescheduling rule. Mulrooney described the defiance as “unprecedented and astonishing.”
Procedural Setbacks and Criticism
This isn’t the first time DEA has faced criticism during the rescheduling process. Last month, Mulrooney reprimanded the agency for errors in subpoenaing Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials to testify. Although he allowed DEA to correct its mistake, the incident underscored the procedural hurdles facing the agency.
Additional lawsuits have added to the controversy. A federal judge recently dismissed a case seeking to obtain DEA’s communications with anti-cannabis organizations. Separately, health professionals and advocacy groups have filed petitions urging courts to review DEA’s witness selection process, claiming it excluded key participants from the hearings.
Industry and Advocacy Group Reactions
The rescheduling debate has attracted widespread attention from industry stakeholders and advocacy groups. For instance, a leading cannabis trade association has asked for clarification on whether it will be allowed to cross-examine DEA representatives. Similarly, Doctors for Drug Policy Reform (D4DPR) and the Veterans Action Council (VAC) have sought judicial intervention to address perceived procedural inequities.
As these legal and administrative battles unfold, the fate of the marijuana rescheduling proposal hangs in the balance. Whether the appeal process will bring clarity or further complicate matters remains to be seen.
