Doctors Sue DEA Over Alleged Unlawful Conspiracy in Marijuana Rescheduling Process
A non-profit organization of doctors who support marijuana reform has filed a lawsuit against the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), alleging that the agency engaged in an “arbitrary and capricious review” of witnesses for hearings on the ongoing cannabis rescheduling process. The lawsuit claims that the DEA carried out an unlawful conspiracy with opponents of marijuana reform, resulting in the exclusion of pro-rescheduling witnesses from the process.
The group, Doctors for Drug Policy Reform (D4DPR), filed the lawsuit with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Monday. The suit argues that the DEA’s witness selection process was biased and that the agency engaged in ex parte communications with certain parties, including opponents of marijuana reform, in violation of federal law.
The DEA had selected only 25 of over 160 applicants to provide input on the rescheduling proposal, which was initiated by the Biden administration. The agency had claimed that the selection process was based on a random lottery, but the lawsuit alleges that the agency’s actions were motivated by a desire to create an evidentiary record that would allow it to reject the proposed rule to reschedule marijuana.
The lawsuit cites evidence of procedural violations, including the fact that the DEA sent “cure letters” to only certain witnesses, asking them to provide additional information showing that they were “interested persons” with relevant evidence to present. The agency did not send similar letters to pro-rescheduling witnesses, and the lawsuit argues that this was a deliberate attempt to skew the process in favor of anti-rescheduling witnesses.
The suit also alleges that the DEA’s Deputy Assistant Administrator followed up with 12 applicants who were strongly opposed to the proposed rule, asking them for additional information about their standing as an aggrieved party and relevant evidence. Only one of the 12 applicants who received these “cure letters” supported the proposed rule, and the lawsuit argues that this was evidence of the agency’s bias.
The lawsuit is seeking a redo of the witness selection process and a reversal of the DEA’s decision to exclude pro-rescheduling witnesses from the process. The suit argues that the fundamental unfairness caused by the ex parte communications cannot be cured by mere explanation and that a mandate for a redo of the witness selection process will not unduly delay the rulemaking hearings, which are currently stayed pending the interlocutory appeal by pro-rule participants.
The rescheduling proceedings have generated significant public interest, and the outcome could have significant implications for the cannabis industry.
