The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is under scrutiny following allegations of bias and improper conduct in the lead-up to a crucial hearing on the rescheduling of cannabis. Advocates for cannabis rescheduling argue that the DEA has deliberately stacked the participant pool with prohibitionists, effectively undermining the integrity of the upcoming proceedings.
Set to begin with preliminary sessions in December, the hearing will determine whether cannabis should remain a Schedule I drug—alongside substances like heroin—or be downgraded to Schedule III, a move recommended by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The stakes are high, and the accusations have further polarized the debate over federal cannabis policy.
The Allegations: Stacking the Deck Against Rescheduling
In a motion filed on November 18, attorney Shane Pennington, representing cannabis company Village Farms International and the nonprofit Hemp for Victory, accused the DEA of tilting the process in favor of prohibitionists. The motion contends that the agency has included participants lacking relevant expertise while excluding prominent figures in cannabis research and advocacy.
Pennington’s filing also asserts that the DEA collaborated with prohibitionist groups like Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) to influence the hearing’s outcome. SAM, led by Kevin Sabet, has been vocal in its opposition to cannabis reform and was included among the 25 participants selected by the DEA. Meanwhile, experts such as Dr. Sue Sisley, a prominent cannabis researcher, were inexplicably excluded.
“This process has been anything but typical for a democratic republic,” Pennington wrote in the motion. He argues that the DEA should be removed as a “proponent” of the proposed rescheduling rule and replaced by the Department of Justice (DOJ), which officially signed the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) earlier this year.
A Controversial Participant List
The DEA’s handling of participant selection has drawn significant criticism. The agency reportedly did not provide the Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), John J. Mulrooney, with clear documentation on why certain participants were chosen. This lack of transparency raises questions about whether the participant pool was intentionally skewed to favor anti-cannabis perspectives.
Key issues include:
- Exclusion of Key Experts: Dr. Sue Sisley, a DEA-registered cannabis grower and leading researcher, was excluded without explanation. Other notable advocates, including representatives from cannabis-friendly states like Colorado, were also left out.
- Inclusion of Prohibitionist Voices: Participants include representatives from Nebraska, a state without a medical cannabis program, and SAM-affiliated individuals, who have been outspoken opponents of cannabis reform.
- Lack of Documentation: The DEA has not provided a public record of who requested to participate, who was denied, or the reasons behind these decisions. Pennington argues that this violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires agencies to provide prompt notice and justification for denying participation.
Conflict Between DEA and DOJ
Adding to the controversy is the apparent disconnect between the DEA and DOJ regarding the NPRM. While DOJ head Merrick Garland signed the proposed rule, DEA Administrator Anne Milgram did not—a break from decades of precedent. This has fueled speculation about the DEA’s reluctance to support cannabis rescheduling and its motivations in the hearing process.
Pennington argues that the DOJ, not the DEA, should act as the proponent for the rule. “If you’re the agency that proposed the rule, then it makes sense that it’s your burden to support your rule,” Pennington said. He claims that the DEA’s involvement as a sponsor of the NPRM is improper and undermines the fairness of the process.
The Role of ALJ Mulrooney
As the presiding judge, Mulrooney faces the challenge of ensuring a fair and transparent hearing. While he has rejected some of the DEA’s proposed participants and acknowledged concerns about the agency’s conduct, Mulrooney stated that he lacks the authority to remove the DEA entirely from the process.
However, Mulrooney has ordered the DEA to respond to the motion’s allegations by November 25. Whether the DEA chooses to address the accusations remains to be seen.
Implications for the Hearing and Beyond
The accusations against the DEA underscore the broader challenges of reforming federal cannabis policy. The outcome of the rescheduling hearing could have far-reaching implications for cannabis research, medical use, and criminal justice reform.
For advocates like Pennington, the fight is as much about ensuring procedural fairness as it is about the substance of the rescheduling debate. “This is going to be a test of whether this ALJ is going to actually take the steps necessary to have a fair hearing,” Pennington said.
If the process is perceived as biased, it could lead to legal challenges from both sides of the cannabis debate, further delaying meaningful reform.
A Test of Transparency and Justice
As the preliminary hearing approaches, the spotlight is on the DEA, DOJ, and ALJ Mulrooney to ensure a fair and impartial process. With accusations of collusion and bias already casting a shadow over the proceedings, the rescheduling debate is as much a test of federal transparency as it is a battle over cannabis policy.
Emily Wilson is a talented wordsmith whose passion for cannabis shines through in her eloquent articles that explore the plant’s cultural significance and historical context. With a focus on arts and lifestyle, she weaves together narratives that celebrate the creativity, innovation, and community fostered by cannabis enthusiasts worldwide. Emily’s unique perspective and engaging storytelling invite readers to embark on a journey of discovery and appreciation for the diverse facets of the cannabis experience.
