{"id":79258,"date":"2024-12-04T09:39:03","date_gmt":"2024-12-04T17:39:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2024\/12\/04\/dea-judge-scolds-agency-for-failure-to-submit-marijuana-rescheduling-evidence-while-scheduling-testimony-in-hearing\/"},"modified":"2024-12-04T19:45:53","modified_gmt":"2024-12-05T03:45:53","slug":"dea-judge-scolds-agency-for-failure-to-submit-marijuana-rescheduling-evidence-while-scheduling-testimony-in-hearing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2024\/12\/04\/dea-judge-scolds-agency-for-failure-to-submit-marijuana-rescheduling-evidence-while-scheduling-testimony-in-hearing\/","title":{"rendered":"DEA Judge Scolds Agency For Failure To Submit Marijuana Rescheduling Evidence, While Scheduling Testimony In Hearing"},"content":{"rendered":"<\/p>\n

A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) judge is scolding the agency for failing to provide required documents ahead of Monday\u2019s initial marijuana rescheduling hearing<\/a> and directing officials\u2014in bold, all-caps text\u2014to furnish them later this month. He also announced the timeline for merit-based hearings on the proposed rule.<\/p>\n

In a prehearing ruling issued on Wednesday, DEA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John Mulrooney laid out next steps in the cannabis rescheduling process, with testimony now set to begin on January 21.<\/p>\n

He also admonished the agency for declining to turn over a list of evidence it plans to introduce in forthcoming proceedings on the proposal to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).<\/p>\n

\u201cFor reasons that are not altogether apparent, although directed to do so in the November 19, 2024 Standing Order, the Government did not supply the complete list of documentary evidence it intended to offer into the record,\u201d he said. \u201cInstead, the Government noticed a few documents and indicated below the line that notice of more documents could be forthcoming upon a supplemental filing date.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIn fairness to the Government\u2019s position, a supplemental prehearing statement date is not an uncommon feature of DEA administrative enforcement proceedings,\u201d the judge said. \u201cThere will be no supplemental prehearing statements in this formal rulemaking proceeding, and the Government is herein DIRECTED<\/strong> to furnish a complete list no later than The Homework Date\u201d of December 13.<\/p>\n

Mulrooney also detailed what\u2019s to come next in the rescheduling proceedings, setting a January 21 date to kick off the merit-based hearing stage. Supporters of the proposed rule, as well as DEA as the designated proponent, will be first to make presentations of their arguments. Opponents will follow, with each party given a specific day for their respective presentations, extending from January 21 to March 6.<\/p>\n

The schedule as ordered by the judge is as follows:<\/strong><\/p>\n

1\/21\/2025 Government
\n1\/22\/2025 Hemp for Victory (HFV)
\n1\/23\/2025 Cannabis Bioscience International Holdings (CBIH)
\n1\/28\/2025 Connecticut Office of the Cannabis Ombudsman (OCO); Ellen Brown; and The DocApp (collectively, OCO. et al.)
\n1\/29\/2025 National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA)
\n1\/30\/2025 Village Farms International (VFI)
\n2\/4\/2025 The Commonwealth Project (TCP)
\n2\/5\/2025 Veterans Initiative 22 (VI22)2\/6\/2025 Dr. Ari Kirshenbaum
\n2\/18\/2025 Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI)
\n2\/19\/2025 International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
\n2\/20\/2025 Drug Enforcement Association of Federal Narcotics Agents (DEAFNA)
\n2\/25\/2025 Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and State of Nebraska (NE) (collectively, SAM, et al.)
\n2\/26\/2025 Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA)
\n2\/27\/2025 Cannabis Industry Victims Educating Litigators (CIVEL)
\n3\/4\/2025 Dr. Kenneth Finn
\n3\/5\/2025 National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA)
\n3\/6\/2025 Dr. Phillip Drum<\/p>\n

The judge noted in his ruling that there\u2019s been a \u201cconsiderable level of spirited motion practice by the Designated Participants (and even numerous attempts from some outside that group),\u201d referencing various attempts to restructure the hearing process, including one that he denied seeking to remove DEA from the process.<\/p>\n

He said \u201cthe time for seeking relief through motion practice has reasonably passed,\u201d and \u201cthe time has come to receive evidence and proceed with the hearing.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cAny further motions must be accompanied by a request to file out of time and supported by a demonstration of good cause that is likely to be narrowly construed,\u201d Mulrooney said.<\/p>\n

Also, he stressed in a footnote in the new order that the more than 43,000 public comments DEA received after published the notice of proposed rulemaking \u201care not evidence\u201d and \u201ccannot be,\u201d admonishing the agency not to attempt to insert the submissions as an exhibit in the proceedings.<\/p>\n

\u201cCongress understood that when it drafted the [Administrative Procedures Act], as did the Agency when it drafted its regulations,\u201d he said. \u201cIf the Comments are not admissible evidence they cannot be considered in the recommended decision. Admitting the Comments into to a hearing record where they cannot be considered would indeed be a pointless exercise.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cOn a more pragmatic level, to attempt to foist a gargantuan mass of inadmissible comments on the tribunal risks the appearance (even if subjectively unwarranted) of a dilatory tactic inflicted on the trier of fact by the agency that represents itself as the proponent of the rule,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, at Monday\u2019s meeting, Mulrooney made clear that the hearings are not meant to determine \u201cwhether marijuana is good or marijuana is bad.\u201d Instead, he\u2019s focused on gathering expert input on the fundamental arguments from supporters and opponents of rescheduling regarding the appropriateness of a Schedule I versus Schedule III designation.<\/p>\n

DEA said in a prehearing statement last month that, if the proposed rule is finalized, \u201cthe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIf 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,\u201d the agency said. \u201cAny drugs containing a substance within the CSA\u2019s definition of \u2018marijuana\u2019 would also remain subject to the applicable prohibitions in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mulrooney on Monday also addressed motions seeking to remove DEA from the proceedings altogether, in part due to alleged unlawful communications with the president of one designated participant, the prohibitionist group Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), signaling that he considered it statutorily complex and potentially impractical to force the agency to turn over its records on the reported\u00a0ex parte<\/em>\u00a0communications.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf people were going to be bad people, would they write it down in a memo so that everyone could read it?\u201d he asked attorney Matt Zorn, who filed a\u00a0Freedom of Information Act request and subsequent lawsuit to obtain any records<\/a>\u00a0of the talks. \u201cWhat are you chasing? Are you chasing a note that somebody wrote, \u2018I had an improper conversation with somebody else, I wanted to put it the memo in case someone wants to indict me?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

The rescheduling proceedings have generated significant public interest. While moving marijuana to Schedule III wouldn\u2019t federally legalize it, the reform would free up licensed cannabis businesses to take federal tax deductions and remove certain research barriers.<\/p>\n

But while DEA is designated as the \u201cproponent\u201d of the proposed rule, there\u2019s been skepticism about where the agency\u2019s leadership actually stands on the issue and whether it may insert bias into the hearing process.<\/p>\n

Part of the reason for that skepticism is because Attorney General Merrick Garland\u2014and not DEA Administrator Anne Milgram\u2014signed 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.<\/p>\n

In a prehearing statement submitted,\u00a0DEA previewed the testimony its own witnesses plan to provide<\/a>\u00a0at the upcoming hearing\u2014without clarifying where it stands on the rescheduling proposal.<\/p>\n

The agency also said that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)\u2014which carried out a scientific review that informed the proposal to move cannabis to Schedule III\u2014\u201crejected\u201d its request to provide witnesses.<\/p>\n

While the initial preliminary hearing happened on Monday, the merit-based proceedings were delayed until at least early 2025 after Mulrooney notified DEA that it provided insufficient information about\u00a0the 25 selected witnesses that Milgram submitted<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, Mulrooney also\u00a0denied a motion to remove the agency from hearings on the cannabis proceedings<\/a>. However, he sharply criticized responses from DEA and a prohibitionist group over an allegation that they unlawfully communicated during the cannabis rulemaking process.<\/p>\n

An attorney subsequently\u00a0filed a lawsuit against DEA for allegedly violating federal public records laws<\/a>, requesting that a court compel the agency to disclose communications with SAM.<\/p>\n

Separately, the judge\u00a0denied a request from a cannabis and psychedelics researcher<\/a>\u00a0to postpone the upcoming rescheduling hearing over the agency\u2019s alleged \u201cimproper blocking\u201d of witnesses, while arguing that the process should be halted at least until President-elect Donald Trump\u2019s administration comes into power so it can review the rulemaking.<\/p>\n

Mulrooney also\u00a0rejected a veterans group\u2019s petition to participate in the rescheduling hearing<\/a>, which the organization called a \u201ctravesty of justice\u201d that excludes key voices that would be affected by the potential policy change. That group has\u00a0asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to intervene<\/a>\u00a0on its behalf.<\/p>\n

For what it\u2019s worth, Vice President Kamala Harris said recently that part of the reason for the delay in the administration\u2019s marijuana rescheduling effort is\u00a0federal bureaucracy that \u201cslows things down,\u201d including at DEA.<\/a><\/p>\n

In March, Harris also expressed some frustration with the bureaucratic process of rescheduling marijuana, prior to DOJ\u2019s formal recommendation,\u00a0calling on DEA to expediently finish the job<\/a>.<\/p>\n

While the Biden\u2013Harris administration facilitated the review that led to the DOJ rescheduling proposal, Trump has also voiced support for the reform.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s recently announced pick for DEA administrator, Hillsborough County, Florida Sheriff Chad Chronister,\u00a0backed a cannabis decriminalization policy<\/a>\u00a0enacted by local officials.<\/p>\n

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

In August, for example, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)\u00a0raised concerns about the Biden administration\u2019s justification<\/a>\u00a0for 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.<\/p>\n

A week earlier, top Democratic senators\u2014including\u00a0 Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)\u2014sent a separate letter to DOJ\u2019s Garland and DEA\u2019s Milgram urging the agencies to\u00a0\u201dpromptly finalize\u201d the rule to reschedule marijuana<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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\u00a0Congressional Research Service (CRS) has made known in multiple recent reports<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, two additional congressional lawmakers have joined the ranks of GOP members who are challenging what they say is\u00a0the \u201cunusual\u201d process that led the Biden administration to propose rescheduling marijuana<\/a>, expressing concern about how the review was carried out and demanding answers.<\/p>\n

Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)\u00a0condemned the Biden administration\u2019s push to reclassify marijuana<\/a>, as well as legislative efforts to enact bipartisan cannabis banking reform, because he says the policy changes would \u201cprop up this immoral industry\u201d and give a \u201cgreen light to the evil that comes from drug use.\u201d<\/p>\n

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) also blasted the Biden administration over what he described as\u00a0repeated refusals from federal agencies to brief Congress<\/a>\u00a0on its plans and justification for rescheduling marijuana, which he argues fuels speculation that the proposed policy change is politically motivated.<\/p>\n

Similarly, 25 GOP congressional lawmakers sent a public comment letter in July opposing the administration\u2019s planned rescheduling of marijuana, specifically alleging\u00a0the government\u2019s recommendation was based on politics rather than science<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Read the DEA judge\u2019s prehearing ruling<\/a>\u00a0on the marijuana rescheduling proposal below:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

DEA Ruling Marijuana Resche\u2026<\/a> by KyleJaeger<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Federal Health Officials \u2018Rejected\u2019 DEA\u2019s Request To Testify At Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing, Agency Tells Judge<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

The post DEA Judge Scolds Agency For Failure To Submit Marijuana Rescheduling Evidence, While Scheduling Testimony In Hearing<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n


\n
\nRead More: DEA Judge Scolds Agency For Failure To Submit Marijuana Rescheduling Evidence, While Scheduling Testimony In Hearing<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) judge is scolding the agency for failing to provide required documents ahead of Monday\u2019s initial marijuana rescheduling hearing and directing officials\u2014in bold, all-caps text\u2014to furnish them later this month. He also announced the timeline for merit-based hearings on the proposed rule. In a prehearing rulingContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":458,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[18,81],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79258"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/458"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=79258"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79258\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":79259,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79258\/revisions\/79259"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79258"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79258"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79258"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}