A dramatic turn of events unfolded Monday when a top Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) administrative law judge, John Mulrooney II, in a recent order, called out the agency for its “unprecedented and astonishing” defiance in the ongoing marijuana rescheduling hearings. The agency’s own judge’s statements cast a significant shadow on government practices, agency transparency, and the big picture for marijuana reform.
A Quick Recap of Marijuana Rescheduling
Let’s understand the context before we look at Mulrooney’s most recent order. Cannabis is currently listed as a Schedule I substance under the CSA, placing it in the same category as heroin. This classification suggests it has a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. However, mounting scientific research and growing public advocacy challenge this outdated designation.
President Biden’s administration proposed reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule III drug in October 2022. This would acknowledge its medical potential, significantly reduce regulatory hurdles, and potentially reshape cannabis policy on a federal and state level.
This reclassification process is currently under review in hearings moderated by a DEA administrative law judge. The hearings are meant to weigh the evidence presented by both proponents and opponents of rescheduling.
DEA’s Defiance in Marijuana Rescheduling Evidence Submission
The drama revolves around the DEA’s refusal to comply with directives for proper evidence submission in these hearings.
The DEA received explicit instructions to submit hard copies of its proposed exhibits, including tens of thousands of public comments collected during the rule-making process. Instead, the agency submitted these materials on compact discs (CDs), defying multiple clear and reiterated directions.
Judge Mulrooney didn’t mince words in his critique. He noted that the DEA’s actions were deliberate and not a result of oversight or misunderstanding.
“Even among the numerous extraordinary and puzzling actions taken thus far by the Government during the course of this litigation, this disobedience of an unequivocal directive from the tribunal is unprecedented and astonishing,” Mulrooney declared in his order.
The judge rejected the DEA’s submission and reserved the possibility of sanctions, which will be addressed later during the formal hearings.
Accusations of Bias and Procedural Issues
The drama doesn’t end there. On the same day, the DEA responded to allegations made last week of bias from pro-rescheduling advocates, who have questioned its impartiality in these hearings.
The motion, filed by participants including Hemp for Victory and Village Farms International, accuses the DEA of the following issues:
- Exclusion of Key Participants: The DEA reportedly blocked Colorado—a pro-cannabis state—from participating in the hearings while helping the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, an anti-reform entity.
- Unlawful Communications: Allegations surfaced claiming undisclosed communication and coordination between the DEA and anti-rescheduling witnesses.
- Selective Witness Choice: Critics have questioned the DEA’s rationale behind approving certain anti-reform witnesses while rejecting others aligned with rescheduling.
While Judge Mulrooney previously ruled that he lacks the authority to disqualify the DEA from these proceedings, the very existence of these allegations just goes to show deep mistrust in the agency’s neutrality.
The DEA, in response, denied the accusations, arguing that the cited evidence was accessible to other participants and insufficient to prove bias.
What’s at Stake?
The implications of this case extend far beyond the walls of the DEA or the hearing room. Despite the significant strides toward marijuana rescheduling reform, the DEA’s actions suggest resistance within parts of the federal apparatus to the proposed changes.
Transparency in Federal Processes
Judge Mulrooney’s critique underscores the importance of fairness and transparency in governmental proceedings. If an administrative agency publicly defies its regulatory protocols, this raises valid doubts about its accountability.
Momentum for Cannabis Reform
Reclassifying cannabis as a Schedule III drug would fast-track broader legalization efforts and open more funding opportunities for research. However, roadblocks and internal friction within federal agencies might slow down this progress.
Public Trust in Institutions
For proponents of cannabis reform, witnessing deliberate defiance in a critical process most certainly continues to erode trust in federal institutions. This lasting mistrust may influence public sentiment and future reform efforts.
A Critical Moment for Federal Cannabis Reform
Observers have noted what appears to be a deliberate “slow-walking” of these cannabis rescheduling hearings, with some suggesting that the DEA is purposefully stalling progress. With hearings expected to run until March, Judge Mulrooney continues to deliberate on his final decisions.
expected to run until March, the wait continues as Judge Mulrooney considers his final decisions.
The eventual outcome of this rescheduling process doesn’t just hold scientific or medical significance—it sends a message about the federal government’s willingness to adapt to changing societal and scientific realities.
This dramatic clash between the DEA and its own administrative law judge highlights the complexities and internal resistance within federal agencies concerning cannabis policy. While marijuana reform faces momentum nationwide, this public airing of government hurdles is a potent reminder that the path to change—even in policy—is rarely plain and simple.
