{"id":87226,"date":"2026-10-21T12:20:16","date_gmt":"2026-10-21T20:20:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2026\/10\/21\/dea-opposes-marijuana-rescheduling-opponents-request-for-new-testimony-and-document-discovery-in-ongoing-hearing\/"},"modified":"2026-10-21T19:46:17","modified_gmt":"2026-10-22T03:46:17","slug":"dea-opposes-marijuana-rescheduling-opponents-request-for-new-testimony-and-document-discovery-in-ongoing-hearing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2026\/10\/21\/dea-opposes-marijuana-rescheduling-opponents-request-for-new-testimony-and-document-discovery-in-ongoing-hearing\/","title":{"rendered":"DEA Opposes Marijuana Rescheduling Opponents\u2019 Request For New Testimony And Document Discovery In Ongoing Hearing"},"content":{"rendered":"<\/p>\n

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is opposing marijuana rescheduling opponents\u2019 request to reopen an ongoing hearing on the Trump administration\u2019s proposed reform<\/a> for a new round of testimony and document discovery.<\/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.<\/p>\n

DEA said in a brief filed earlier this month that it is fine with including the document in the hearing record<\/a>, as opponents have pushed for, but it does not want any further briefings on the matter\u2014nor, it said in a new brief filed on Tuesday, does the agency think DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius should further delay the proceedings by ordering additional testimony and discovery.<\/p>\n

The agency\u2019s latest filing argues that opponents are seeking permission for an \u201cobvious fishing expedition based on a Report that is clear on its face\u201d and that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not provide for additional record supplementation and general discovery in the rulemaking proceeding now that testimony has closed.<\/p>\n

\u201cTo supplement the record, the Movants must show that the agency deliberately or negligently excluded documents that may have been adverse to its decision, background information is needed to determine whether the agency considered all the relevant factors, or that the agency failed to explain its administrative action so as to frustrate judicial review,\u201d DEA said, arguing that none of that has occurred.<\/p>\n

Julius still hasn\u2019t decided whether to admit the report in question, which was published last month by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)<\/a>. The watchdog agency\u2019s review 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 in its Tuesday brief that rescheduling opponents have not identified \u201cother records with any specificity to supplement the Record.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Report identifies the absence of policy and procedure records, not the presence of those materials,\u201d the agency pointed out.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile Movants reference their discovery requests as \u2018limited\u2019 and \u2018narrowly tailored,\u2019 these requests are neither limited nor narrow,\u201d the filing said. \u201cInstead, Movants seek broad categories of materials and testimony related to issues the parties addressed repeatedly at the hearing and an additional request for GAO\u2019s materials for all scheduling matters in the prior six years from every entity GAO sought said information from, and the content of every GAO request for information.\u201d<\/p>\n

DEA said the information in the requests has largely already been entered into the hearing record through previously delivered testimony.<\/p>\n

\u201cMovants argue that their disagreement with the Government\u2019s interpretation creates a material issue of fact that this Court must resolve by allowing Movants to engage in broad, general written discovery, witness depositions, and further briefing to the Tribunal during a stay implemented until they have concluded their discovery process. This is an obvious fishing expedition based on a Report that is clear on its face\u2026 Movants\u2019 reliance on this Report as the basis for their general discovery requests is misplaced. The parties\u2019 disagreement about the Report\u2019s findings and its impact on FDA\u2019s scheduling recommendation do not create a material issue of fact.\u201d<\/p>\n

Also on Wednesday, the National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA), DUID Victim Voices and Kenneth Finn requested and received from Julius permission to file a response to DEA\u2019s latest submission.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Government admits the GAO Report documents \u2018the absence of policy and procedure records,’\u201d the rescheduling opponents said. \u201cThat absence is the finding\u2026 The Government cannot concede that no standard existed and then call the missing standard immaterial.\u201d<\/p>\n

DEA\u2019s previously filed brief argued 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

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

NDASA, DUID and Finn filed a motion last week 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.\u201d<\/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 latest filings and order<\/a>\u00a0in marijuana rescheduling hearing below:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

The post DEA Opposes Marijuana Rescheduling Opponents\u2019 Request For New Testimony And Document Discovery In Ongoing Hearing<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n


\n
\nRead More: DEA Opposes Marijuana Rescheduling Opponents\u2019 Request For New Testimony And Document Discovery In Ongoing Hearing<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is opposing marijuana rescheduling opponents\u2019 request to reopen an ongoing hearing on the Trump administration\u2019s proposed reform for a new round of testimony and document discovery. The dispute concerns a recently released federal watchdog report that found there are \u201cgaps\u201d in the government\u2019s process for evaluatingContinue 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\/87226"}],"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=87226"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87226\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":87227,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87226\/revisions\/87227"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=87226"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=87226"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=87226"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}