Doctors Urge U.S. Court to Reconsider DEA’s Cannabis Rescheduling Hearing Selection

A group of doctors is pushing back against the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), arguing that the agency’s selection process for a crucial cannabis rescheduling hearing was flawed. The nonprofit Doctors for Drug Policy Reform (D4DPR) filed a 56-page appellate brief on Feb. 17, demanding a fair redo of the participant selection. They say the DEA’s rejection of most applicants—including them—lacked transparency and violated administrative law.

DEA’s Selection Process Sparks Legal Challenge

The DEA limited participation in the formal rulemaking hearing to 25 individuals or organizations, rejecting 138 out of 163 applicants. D4DPR, which represents more than 400 physicians, was among those excluded. The organization’s president, Dr. Bryon Adinoff, a board-certified addiction psychiatrist and professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, argues the agency acted unfairly.

In its brief, D4DPR claims the DEA’s selection process was “arbitrary and capricious” and failed to provide proper reasoning. Every rejected applicant received identical denial letters, stating they had not sufficiently established themselves as “interested persons” or presented relevant evidence.

A closer look at the rejection letters shows a lack of case-by-case evaluation. Instead of explaining why specific groups were left out, the DEA issued blanket denials, raising concerns about the fairness of the hearing.

The Fight Over Cannabis Rescheduling

At the center of this legal fight is the U.S. government’s plan to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This shift, if approved, would recognize cannabis as having accepted medical use and a lower potential for abuse compared to drugs like heroin or LSD.

However, the process has sparked controversy. D4DPR and others who support evidence-based cannabis regulation argue that excluding key stakeholders from the hearing undermines the integrity of the rulemaking process.

• What’s at stake? A Schedule III classification could open the door for increased research and medical use of cannabis.
• Who’s involved? The Department of Justice (DOJ), DEA, and various organizations with opposing views on cannabis policy.
• Why does it matter? If the hearing lacks diverse input, critics argue it could lead to biased policymaking that doesn’t fully reflect scientific or medical perspectives.

Unequal Treatment of Applicants?

Adding fuel to the controversy, the DEA reportedly gave some applicants a chance to correct their submissions, while others, including D4DPR, received outright rejections.

The appellate brief highlights “cure letters” sent to a select group of applicants—mainly those opposed to rescheduling. These letters, signed by DEA Deputy Assistant Administrator Matthew Strait, invited recipients to submit additional details proving they were “adversely affected” by the proposed rule.

This raises serious questions:

• Why were only certain groups given a second chance?
• Did the DEA favor anti-rescheduling voices?
• Is the hearing truly balanced if key medical experts are excluded?

The lawsuit suggests the DEA may have actively shaped the participant pool to favor one side of the debate.

What Happens Next?

D4DPR wants the appellate court to intervene and force the DEA to reassess its selection criteria. The group believes the agency should allow more diverse voices, especially medical professionals, to contribute to the discussion.

Legal experts say the case could set a precedent for future regulatory hearings, particularly those dealing with high-stakes drug policy decisions. If the court rules in D4DPR’s favor, it could force the DEA to reopen the selection process, potentially delaying the rescheduling decision.

With cannabis policy evolving in the U.S., this legal battle is more than just a procedural dispute—it’s a fight over how government agencies handle public input on major health and drug policy changes.