DEA Cannabis Rescheduling Hearing Thrown Into Chaos Over Filing Error

A simple filing mistake has thrown a wrench into the already contentious battle over cannabis rescheduling. Ellen Brown, one of the designated participants in the DEA’s hearing on whether to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III drug, found herself unexpectedly linked to a motion she never consented to. Now, questions are swirling about legal strategy, procedural fairness, and the future of the hearing itself.

A Motion No One Agreed To—At Least Not Everyone

Brown, a pro-rescheduling advocate, was set to have her witness, Dr. Marion McNabb, testify in the hearing overseen by DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge John J. Mulrooney. McNabb, an expert in real-world cannabis research, was expected to provide key insights into cannabis use, abuse potential, and medical benefits.

But before that could happen, an interlocutory appeal motion was filed—one Brown was shocked to find her name attached to. She first learned about it through news reports on January 8.

“I was in no way happy that this had been done without my knowledge or consent,” Brown said. “And I really didn’t understand the repercussions of the motion being filed.”

Her concern? This motion, which sought to challenge the DEA’s involvement in the hearing, could stall or even derail the process entirely.

A Legal Mess Rooted in a Typo

The situation took a bizarre turn when it became clear that Brown’s name wasn’t explicitly included in the motion but was instead linked due to a simple clerical error. The mistake stemmed from a legal filing submitted by attorneys Matthew Zorn and Shane Pennington.

Zorn, who represents Brown and other pro-rescheduling participants, had initially indicated that only the Connecticut Office of Cannabis Ombudsman (OCO) would join the motion. However, a misstep in the final draft left his signature block reading “Counsel for Designated Participants OCO et al.”

That small “et al.”—which translates to “and others”—was never corrected before submission. The result? Brown was suddenly and unintentionally roped into the motion.

The Back-and-Forth That Led to the Confusion

On January 6, at 7:51 a.m. EST, Zorn emailed Pennington about which of his clients would be joining the motion. He wrote:

  • “I’m double checking, but probably OCO only.”

But just three hours later, Zorn returned the document with his edits, leaving the “et al.” in place. That simple oversight had major consequences.

Pennington later acknowledged the mistake in a January 23 declaration, outlining the timeline of email exchanges and edits. The damage, however, was already done.

Fallout and Frustration

Once the motion was filed, Brown tried to distance herself from it—but that proved easier said than done.

“All of my concerns were pretty much brushed aside,” she said.

Even though the motion to reconsider the DEA’s role in the hearing was ultimately denied, the interlocutory appeal request was approved. That meant an automatic 90-day stay in the proceedings, further delaying an already slow-moving process.

To Brown, it felt like a strategic misstep that could cost pro-rescheduling advocates their chance at a fair hearing.

What This Means for the Rescheduling Effort

This procedural misstep couldn’t have come at a worse time for those pushing to reclassify cannabis under federal law. The delay caused by the appeal means:

  • The DEA’s role in the hearing remains unchallenged, despite allegations that it favored anti-rescheduling groups.
  • Expert witnesses like Dr. McNabb, who could provide critical scientific insight, now have to wait even longer to present their findings.
  • Pro-rescheduling advocates risk losing momentum while prohibitionist groups benefit from the additional time.

Brown’s frustration is palpable. “Had I known about the repercussions, I would’ve never agreed,” she said. “And it became kind of a conversation where it was almost like, ‘Well, that’s why I didn’t ask you because I knew you wouldn’t agree.’”

Where Things Stand Now

With Mulrooney’s ruling in place, the hearing won’t resume for at least three months. That pause gives all parties time to reassess their strategies—but it also extends the uncertainty surrounding cannabis rescheduling.

For now, Brown is left dealing with the fallout of a legal error she had no part in making. And for the broader cannabis industry, this unexpected twist adds yet another hurdle in the long fight for federal policy reform.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *