A non-profit organization of pro-marijuana reform doctors has filed a brief in a federal appeals court arguing that new evidence has surfaced demonstrating that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) carried out an “arbitrary and capricious review” of witnesses for hearings on the ongoing cannabis rescheduling process that should now be redone.
The group is alleging that there’s “substantial evidence” of procedural violations committed by DEA leadership during the witness selection process—including previously unreported unlawful ex parte communications with certain parties, most of whom oppose the rescheduling proposal.
The suit from Doctors for Drug Policy Reform (D4DPR)—filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Monday—comes amid an indefinite delay of the DEA administrative hearings on the Biden administration-initiated proposal to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
At issue in the legal challenge is the fact that then-DEA Administrator Anne Milgram selected just 25 of more than 160 applicants that sought to provide input on the rescheduling proposal.
According to attorneys represented by D4DPR, which was among the groups denied designated participant status for the hearings, there’s substantial evidence that DEA’s ex parte communications were “motivated by the impermissible goal of creating an evidentiary record that would allow it to reject the proposed rule to reschedule marijuana.”
“The Agency gave no reasons for selecting only 25 participants or why it selected particular applicants,” the lawsuit says. “The Agency’s failure to explain the reasons for its selections warrants vacatur and remand with instructions to redo the selections.”
Hellbound and Down 