The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is facing legal heat following accusations of unlawful communication with Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), a leading opponent of the Biden administration’s plan to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Now, a judge has given both DEA and SAM until November 25 to respond.

Here’s what we know.

The Facts

On November 20, DEA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John Mulrooney issued an order responding to a motion filed by cannabis organizations Village Farms International and Hemp for Victory. The motion disputes the DEA’s role as a “proponent” of the rescheduling rule, alleging conflicts of interest.

The motion argues that the DEA’s advocacy for the rescheduling rule violates impartiality principles:

“Not once in its history as an agency had DEA ever rejected an HHS scheduling recommendation. This time, however, DEA did not just disagree with HHS’s views, it opposed them so vehemently that the Attorney General had to refer the interagency dispute to the Office of Legal Counsel for resolution.”

As a result, Mulrooney has set a deadline for the DEA to respond by November 25, 2024. Part of the argument is that the DEA engaged in unlawful communications with the anti-cannabis group SAM, thus indicating its bias on the cannabis issue.

The plot thickened and legal tension escalated the very next day, on November 21, when Mulrooney extended the invitation for SAM to address allegations of unlawful ex parte communications with the DEA.

“As such, it is herein ORDERED, that in addition to the Government, should Smart Approaches to Marijuana (and by this order only that Designated Participant) elect to respond to the Motion it may do so no later than 2:00 P.M. Eastern Time on November 25, 2024,” stated his last order, as reported Marijuana Moment.

Read Also: DEA Is Compromised, DOJ Should Replace It In Cannabis Rescheduling, Claims Joint Motion

The Arguments And SAM’s Alleged Role

The motion, filed on November 18, claims that the DEA’s actions contradict its traditional role.

The groups argue that the DEA, which enforces controlled substances law, should not also be advocating for changes to that law.

The motion also points out that the DEA’s strong opposition to the rescheduling proposal, despite the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommendation, raises concerns about the agency’s neutrality. The involvement of SAM in this process, especially regarding alleged unlawful communications, has become a key issue in the case.

That is the reason why Mulrooney has ordered both the DEA and SAM to respond to the allegations, something they have failed to do so far.

Get Benzinga’s exclusive analysis and the top news about the cannabis industry and markets daily in your inbox for free. Subscribe to our newsletter here. If you’re serious about the business, you can’t afford to miss out.

Legal And Political Implications

As the December 2, hearing approaches, the stakes in this legal battle continue to rise. The outcome could significantly affect cannabis policy in the United States. Cannabis advocates, researchers and veterans groups are calling for a fair and transparent process.

These groups have raised concerns about the list of approved participants for the hearing, pointing out that Village Farms is the only cannabis company selected by the DEA. Additionally, despite over 42,000 public comments supporting rescheduling or delisting cannabis, the DEA’s list is dominated by anti-cannabis groups.

Cover: AI Generated Image