{"id":87166,"date":"2026-10-14T08:58:47","date_gmt":"2026-10-14T16:58:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2026\/10\/14\/dea-judge-orders-agency-to-address-marijuana-rescheduling-opponents-request-for-new-testimony-and-document-discovery\/"},"modified":"2026-10-14T19:46:26","modified_gmt":"2026-10-15T03:46:26","slug":"dea-judge-orders-agency-to-address-marijuana-rescheduling-opponents-request-for-new-testimony-and-document-discovery","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2026\/10\/14\/dea-judge-orders-agency-to-address-marijuana-rescheduling-opponents-request-for-new-testimony-and-document-discovery\/","title":{"rendered":"DEA Judge Orders Agency To Address Marijuana Rescheduling Opponents\u2019 Request For New Testimony And Document Discovery"},"content":{"rendered":"<\/p>\n

A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) judge overseeing a\u00a0hearing on the Trump administration\u2019s marijuana rescheduling proposal<\/a> is ordering the agency to respond to opponents\u2019 request for a new round of testimony and discovery in the proceedings.<\/p>\n

The dispute concerns a recently released federal watchdog report that found there are \u201cgaps\u201d in the government\u2019s process for evaluating controlled substances. DEA said in a brief filed last week that it is fine with including the document in the hearing record, as opponents have pushed for, but it does not want any further briefings on the matter.<\/p>\n

Opponents of the reform, meanwhile, are pushing to further delay a decision in the proceedings by asking the judge to order a new round of testimony and discovery<\/a>.<\/p>\n

DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius on Wednesday issued an order directing the agency to reply to the opposition motion by October 21.<\/p>\n

\u201cHaving received a new substantive motion, I will once again order a response and allow time for filing,\u201d he said, specifying that DEA\u2019s brief should be no more than 10 pages long.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis matter remains STAYED to allow time for a response and to allow time for the tribunal to consider the pending motions,\u201d the judge said.<\/p>\n

Julius separately granted opposing parties\u2019 motion to file a brief responding to DEA\u2019s most recent filing in the case while saying that \u201cI have not yet ruled on the Motion to Admit GAO Report and RESERVE ruling on that motion pending additional responses.\u201d<\/p>\n

Opponents of cannabis rescheduling are asking that the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on drug scheduling<\/a> be included in the record, and Julius last month paused the proceedings and ordered DEA to weigh in on whether the document should be made a part of the process<\/a>.<\/p>\n

DEA\u2019s most recent brief argues that it defers to the judge on whether the GAO report should be included in the record, but it opposes opponents\u2019 request for additional briefings to be ordered concerning what the report\u2019s findings mean for cannabis rescheduling.<\/p>\n

Those opponents have \u201cmischaracterized the GAO Report and its impact\u201d on the marijuana rescheduling process, the agency said, adding that it \u201cdoes not present any new evidence salient to the issue before this Tribunal.\u201d<\/p>\n

That report found, among other things that DEA \u201cdoes not have any policies or procedures regarding how its staff are to conduct evaluations or schedule substances\u201d and the Food and Drug Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) \u201cdoes not have policies or procedures specifying how its staff are to conduct evaluations or develop scheduling recommendations for substances.\u201d<\/p>\n

DEA said, however, that the GAO report merely identified \u201cgaps in the memorialization of rescheduling process, not any flaws in the rescheduling process itself.\u201d<\/p>\n

Until recently, the only expected remaining step in the proceedings had been for Julius to issue his own recommendation on marijuana rescheduling to the DEA administrator, who would then make a final determination on the policy.<\/p>\n

But last month the judge granted the motion for a stay filed by the National Drug and Alcohol Association (NDASA), DUID Victim Voices and Kenneth Finn, M.D.\u2014parties opposed to cannabis rescheduling that participated in the hearing and who now want the GAO report included as part of the record.<\/p>\n

Other parties in the hearing were \u201cpermitted, but not required\u201d to file briefs on whether the GAO report should be included in the marijuana rescheduling hearing record.<\/p>\n

Prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the states of Idaho, Indiana and Nebraska filed a joint brief on Tuesday arguing that the GAO report is \u201ccompetent, relevant, and material evidence to proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law that directly bear on the Rescheduling determination before the Tribunal.\u201d<\/p>\n

The National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA), DUID Victim Voices, and Kenneth Finn also filed a separate joint brief on Monday, arguing that \u201cadditional briefing is necessary because this dispute goes beyond whether the Report is admissible\u2014it concerns what the Report means and why it matters.\u201d<\/p>\n

The opponents\u2019 brief also calls attention to their arguments that a new two-part test federal officials used to analyze cannabis improperly departs from a former five-part test.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Report\u2019s findings bear directly on whether the agencies used a consistent, reviewable method here. It gives no reason for the change from the five-factor CAMU test to the two-part version,\u201d it says. \u201cThat unexplained change matters because the hearing record shows that FDA began its work before the two-part test existed, was directed to use it, and never completed a five-factor analysis.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Government cannot rely on an unexplained change in method to establish its desired Schedule III findings,\u201d the opponents argue. \u201cIt also cannot admit it lacks established procedures for making findings on rescheduling that are required by law and then insist those deficiencies are immaterial.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 2024, the Department of Justice\u2019s (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)\u00a0said the prior five-part test was \u201cimpermissibly narrow\u201d<\/a> and said the two-part review \u201cis sufficient to establish\u201d that a drug has a currently accepted medical use.<\/p>\n

NDASA, DUID and Finn also filed a separate motion on Monday asking the DEA judge to order a \u201cnarrow reopening of the hearing for limited discovery and testimony tied to the Report, the agency-process gaps it identified, and why those gaps matter to marijuana rescheduling.:<\/p>\n

They are requesting authority to \u201cserve narrowly tailored document requests and to seek testimony limited to\u201d certain specific subjects.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe requested discovery is necessary and proportionate. It targets the process facts GAO identified, the factual disputes the Government created in its response, and the issues the Government restricted during the hearing,\u201d the motion says. \u201cIt does not seek a broad reopening, a new merits case, or duplicative testimony already taken. Limited discovery is therefore proportional to the issues the Report and the Government\u2019s response have placed before the tribunal.\u201d<\/p>\n

It remains to be seen whether Julius will order additional briefings on the GAO report and whether he will take the more far-reaching step of reopening testimony and discovery.<\/p>\n

Attorney General Todd Blanche in April issued an order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis<\/a>, as well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III.<\/p>\n

Under a separate order he signed, the DEA hearing was held in June and July to consider more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Government is not putting forth any evidence to suggest that marijuana is not dangerous. All controlled substances by definition are dangerous,\u201d James Schwartz, a DEA attorney, said on the opening day of the hearing, according to the transcript. \u201cThat is why they are scheduled in the first place. However, controlled substances must be evaluated by the risks they pose balanced with the medical use they provide.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe proposed rule, the supporting documents, and the Government witnesses will establish that marijuana has a currently accepted medical use,\u201d he said. \u201cWith that determination, marijuana can no longer remain in Schedule I.\u201d<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, DEA and parties that participated in the marijuana rescheduling hearing laid out their arguments in final briefs<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The federal agency, which was charged with defending the proposed rescheduling move, said in its brief that \u201cmarijuana no longer fits the statutory requirements for Schedule I because it has a currently accepted medical use within the United States and it has an accepted safety for its use under medical supervision.\u201d<\/p>\n

The agency noted that under the law it must give \u201csignificant deference\u201d to an \u201cextensive ten-month study on the scientific and medical properties\u201d of cannabis conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which recommended rescheduling.<\/p>\n

\u201cCurrently there are over 30,000 practitioners treating more than six million patients in 43 U.S. jurisdictions,\u201d DEA said. \u201cSuch practices demonstrate that there is no longer a lack of accepted safety for use of marijuana under medical supervision, and as such, marijuana does not fulfill the requirements of being a Schedule I substance.\u201d<\/p>\n

It also said that there is \u201csubstantial evidence sufficient to show that marijuana\u2019s abuse and dependency profiles better align with Schedule III substances than Schedule II\u201d or Schedule I. \u201cThe vast majority of individuals who use marijuana do so in a manner that does not result in dangers to themselves or to their communities.\u201d<\/p>\n

In conclusion, DEA asked the judge overseeing the hearing to \u201cexpeditiously recommend\u201d that marijuana be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule III.<\/p>\n

During the hearing, DEA officials charged with defending the cannabis rescheduling proposal<\/a> highlighted testimony on marijuana\u2019s medical benefits and its relative safety compared to other substances such as alcohol and opioids<\/a>. That included appearances from a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientist and a medical doctor from New Hampshire who detailed how medical marijuana provides relief to pain patients and can serve as an alternative to opioids.<\/a><\/p>\n

Meanwhile, lawyers and witnesses for parties who are oppose marijuana rescheduling and participated in the hearing\u00a0put significant focus on the alleged harms of cannabis use as well as criticism of recently adopted changes to an analysis used to determine whether drugs have accepted medical value<\/a>.<\/p>\n

DEA invited only organizations and people who oppose marijuana reform to join the hearing<\/a> as designated participants\u2014telling supporters that they do not meet the definition of an \u201cinterested person\u201d to participate because they are not \u201cadversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ahead of the hearing\u2019s start, marijuana reform activists held a press conference outside DEA headquarters to highlight how they feel the have been \u201cshut out\u201d<\/a> of the process\u2014criticizing the fact that no supporters of reform were invited to participate and that the proceedings were not livestreamed despite officials\u2019 vows of \u201ctransparency.\u201d<\/p>\n

Marijuana Moment sent requests to Julius, the DEA judge, and to Cole, the DEA administrator,<\/a> requesting they reverse a decision to prohibit the public from tuning into the cannabis hearing via livestream<\/a>. A congressman and other journalists later joined in that request<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u2014<\/strong>
\nMarijuana Moment\u2019s journalism is made possible by readers like you who value this work enough to support us with monthly pledges on Patreon<\/a>. If you rely on our reporting to stay informed about key cannabis developments, please help us keep doing this by becoming a sustaining subscriber today<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Backing us at the $25\/month level also gets you access to our Bill Tracker so you won\u2019t miss any important marijuana legislation in your state.<\/strong>
\n\u2014<\/strong><\/p>\n

A prior hearing process on the marijuana rescheduling process that was initiated by the Biden administration stalled last year amid litigation over alleged improper communications and witness selection<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The current marijuana rescheduling process is being challenged with several lawsuits<\/a> that have been consolidated by a federal appeals court. Those pieces of litigation against the cannabis reform have been filed by state attorneys general<\/a>, marijuana legalization opponents<\/a> and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently\u00a0rejected a drug testing industry association and a pharmaceutical company\u2019s request to block the Trump administration from moving forward with cannabis rescheduling<\/a> while the litigation is considered. The parties have jointly filed a proposed briefing schedule for the legal dispute<\/a>.<\/p>\n

A congressional committee recently voted to\u00a0block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling<\/a>, though bipartisan lawmakers told Marijuana Moment they don\u2019t believe that provision will be enacted<\/a> into law.<\/p>\n

Read the order<\/a>\u00a0in marijuana rescheduling hearing below:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

The post DEA Judge Orders Agency To Address Marijuana Rescheduling Opponents\u2019 Request For New Testimony And Document Discovery<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n


\n
\nRead More: DEA Judge Orders Agency To Address Marijuana Rescheduling Opponents\u2019 Request For New Testimony And Document Discovery<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) judge overseeing a\u00a0hearing on the Trump administration\u2019s marijuana rescheduling proposal is ordering the agency to respond to opponents\u2019 request for a new round of testimony and discovery in the proceedings. The dispute concerns a recently released federal watchdog report that found there are \u201cgaps\u201d inContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":459,"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\/87166"}],"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\/459"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=87166"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87166\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":87167,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87166\/revisions\/87167"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=87166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=87166"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=87166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}