In a significant turn of events, a judge within the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has mandated that the agency must formulate a response within a seven-day period to accusations suggesting illicit discourse with those opposed to the legalization of marijuana.
These charges come to light during a critical juncture in the potential reclassification of marijuana’s legal status.
Claims of Inappropriate Actions
The cannabis advocacy entities, Hemp for Victory and Village Farms, have leveled charges at the DEA, claiming the agency partook in unauthorized ex parte communication concerning the potential reclassification proposal, potentially violating the Administrative Procedure Act. They have suggested that the DEA’s role in this matter should be taken over by another entity such as the Justice Department or Hemp for Victory itself. This suggestion arises from a recent precedent-setting scenario in which the proposed amendment to reduce marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III substance under the Controlled Substances Act was signed by Attorney General Merrick Garland rather than DEA’s Anne Milgram.
DEA Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney carefully addressed these allegations with a detailed order. He recognized the complexities involved in excluding the DEA from its traditional duties in managing this procedural undertaking and noted that such an action may fall outside his adjudicative authority. However, Mulrooney clarified, “This tribunal does maintain adequate autonomy and discretion to submit recommendations to the Administrator, regardless of any discomfort such may bring upon the Agency or its Executives.”
Judge Mulrooney showed caution at the idea of replacing the DEA’s leadership with a possibly prejudiced advocate. However, he acknowledged the severe nature of the alleged improper exchanges. His attention to the stringency of the APA’s rules on such exchanges hints at the motion’s mention of DEA personnel’s potential illicit contact with Kevin Sabet, President of Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM).
Sabet allegedly shared on a social media platform that he had confidential information suggesting that Anne Milgram of the DEA would not endorse the proposed regulation.
The Journey Ahead
Notwithstanding the case’s intricate nature, Judge Mulrooney’s decision not to strike out the motion was seen by Shane Pennington, the cannabis groups’ representative lawyer, as evidence of the judge’s earnest scrutiny of the allegations.
The judge’s order also scrutinizes the DEA’s conduct and questions if their actions as a proponent in the rulemaking process were fitting, particularly due to their evident hesitation to support reclassification of marijuana.
While the process unfolds and involved parties anticipate the DEA’s formal statement, due by November 25, this incident reflects the broader dissensions within the political and administrative realms, repercussions of which may extend well past the potential reclassification of cannabis.
