The ongoing dispute between MMJ BioPharma Cultivation and the DEA has become more than just a legal battle about cannabis manufacturing licenses; it has evolved into a case that could possibly challenge the constitutional validity of the DEA’s administrative law system.

Two recent rulings by Chief Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney II have highlighted both the systemic issues in the DEA’s adjudication of cannabis-related applications and the larger implications for administrative agencies. Here’s what’s happening, what it means, and what might come next.

Backdrop of the Case

MMJ BioPharma Cultivation, an FDA-focused drug development company, is developing pharmaceutical-grade cannabis for clinical trials targeting Huntington’s Disease and Multiple Sclerosis but continues to face a prolonged battle with the DEA.

The company has spent over 2,374 days pursuing a bulk manufacturing license to grow marijuana, adhering fully to the Controlled Substances Act and FDA regulatory pathways.

The company has devoted more than seven years to pursuing its bulk manufacturing license. This license is critical, not just for MMJ’s drug development aims under FDA Investigational New Drug (IND) protocols, but also for advancing pharmaceutical-grade cannabinoid therapies.

Despite MMJ’s efforts to comply with DEA requirements, according to a recent press release, Judge Mulrooney abruptly canceled a recently scheduled hearing. The court dismissed the case procedurally without allowing the presentation of evidence or testimony.

This decision was made despite MMJ having submitted binding agreements to address DEA demands. For the company, this wasn’t just a bureaucratic inconvenience; it was a move they claim denied them due process, outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

A Closer Look at Judge Mulrooney’s Decisions

Judge Mulrooney’s rulings appeared to sidestep a fair evaluation of evidence. MMJ had supplied documents, such as a Bona Fide Supply Agreement, designed to fulfill the DEA’s stringent requirements.

Yet the submitted documents were overlooked, ignored, or dismissed without explanation or hearing. This refusal to adjudicate evidence significantly raises questions about fairness within the DEA’s administrative processes.

The ruling also preempted scheduled testimony and cross-examination, citing “procedural concerns” and alleged ex parte communications between DEA personnel and the court.

This further strained the credibility of the DEA’s internal adjudication process and has led MMJ to suggest systemic bias and procedural trickery aimed at sidelining legitimate applicants.

These grievances are framed against the backdrop of Supreme Court cases Axon Enterprise Inc. v. FTC (2023) and Jarkesy v. SEC (2024). Both cases challenged the constitutionality of administrative law judge systems (ALJ) in federal agencies when constitutional rights were at play.

The rulings emphatically underscored that federal agencies cannot operate as insulated judicial bodies immune to oversight. Specifically, Axon established that constitutional challenges to administrative adjudications could move directly to federal court without losing time in internal procedural labyrinths that might already cause irreparable harm.

Constitutional and Systemic Critiques of the DEA

At heart lies the issue of whether the DEA’s ALJ system can withstand constitutional scrutiny. Mulrooney’s decision not only highlights the challenges individual organizations like MMJ face but also paints a broader picture of how administrative processes can fall out of step with modern judicial standards.

Key constitutional critiques of the DEA’s administrative system include:

• Due Process Violations – By denying MMJ an opportunity to present evidence or defend its case, the DEA process conflicts with basic tenets of fairness and due process.
  
  
• Seventh Amendment Concerns – Jarkesy pointed to concerns surrounding administrative systems bypassing constitutional guarantees like jury trials, which are inherent to contested processes involving private rights.
  
  
• Separation of Powers – The insulation of administrative law judges within the DEA potentially violates principles laid out in the U.S. Constitution’s Article II, including presidential oversight of executive functions.

The implications of these critiques go far beyond MMJ. If MMJ advances its challenge to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals or higher — as seems likely given the company’s post-ruling legal strategies — the DEA’s entire adjudication structure could face renewed federal and constitutional scrutiny.

What’s Next for MMJ BioPharma?

MMJ is not backing down despite these procedural setbacks and appears ready to pursue multiple legal strategies.

MMJ may escalate the matter to the federal level by filing a lawsuit that challenges both the ruling and the constitutionality of the DEA’s Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) system, according to a press release. If successful, MMJ’s legal efforts could set a precedent.

This could reshape how the DEA handles license applications under the Controlled Substances Act and potentially weaken the agency’s internal adjudicatory protections.

The Larger Context of Cannabis Reform

This particular case cannot be separated from the larger cannabis policy debates roiling through the United States. While public opinion and state legislation overwhelmingly trend toward marijuana acceptance, the DEA’s procedures appear tenaciously grounded in outdated frameworks.

The administrative hurdles faced by MMJ highlight a concerning contradiction between federal agencies, scientific progress, and patient access to pharmaceutical cannabis therapies.

Initiatives like those pursued by MMJ have the potential to significantly expand effective treatment options for debilitating conditions. Yet these efforts are jeopardized by institutional resistance within the DEA.

The Supreme Court may ultimately need to decide whether agencies like the DEA should continue administering controlled substance regulations under systems that may conflict with modern constitutional rulings.

The MMJ-DEA saga is emblematic of a larger struggle over the trajectory of cannabis regulation, administrative accountability, and constitutional law. While MMJ BioPharma Cultivation’s immediate next steps will focus on legal remedies, the broader implications of its battle could resonate across industries regulated by federal agencies.

The stakes are high—not just for MMJ, but for the integrity of administrative law as more people question the DEA’s adjudication procedures. Whether MMJ ultimately wins its case in federal court remains uncertain, but the company’s persistence has already revealed systemic faults that require reform.