[[{“value”:”
The rescheduling of cannabis in the US, one of the most consequential cannabis reform efforts of the last century, is on increasingly uncertain ground amid a shock postponement and the introduction of a new enigmatic administration.
Last week, Business of Cannabis reported that the first hearing for the proposed rescheduling of cannabis had been postponed indefinitely amid allegations that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), set to oversee the rescheduling process, was actively working to undermine it.
On January 15, Chief Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney sent an interlocutory appeal to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram after granting a rare request from pro-rescheduling parties seeking an investigation into claims of improper ex parte communications between DEA officials and anti-rescheduling witnesses.
Judge Mulrooney himself, alongside legal representatives of the parties who called for the appeal, point out that the DEA is yet to deny these allegations.
“Contrary to the request of the interlocutory appellants, no hearing has been conducted on these allegations, no evidence or testimony was received on the underlying factual allegations, and no facts have been found,” he said in his letter to Milgram, adding that these allegations had brought an ‘irrevocable taint’ on the entire process.
Shane Pennington, who represents the parties who called for the appeal, Village Farms and Hemp for Victory, told the Dales Report podcast last week that ‘we’ve put forward the proof of DEA’s collusion, and they don’t even deny that it happened.’
Addressing frustrations from within the industry that their interjection has delayed the process indefinitely, he continued: “We’ve been working day and night on this, and we want it done as quickly as possible. The public should understand that the DEA—not us—chose to delay the process by granting this hearing.
“The delays have drawn ire from an industry desperate for progress. “People want a win, and I get that. But building a record of what’s happening here—documenting the grotesque lack of judgement and fairness from DEA officials—is crucial for any future administration or Congress to act.”
As the rhetoric surrounding the debate heats up on both sides, all eyes are on who the next administrator of the DEA will be, and how that decision will impact this process.
Head of Legal and Policy Research at NuggMD, Deb Tharp, tells Business of Cannabis that this represents a significant ‘crossroads’ in the rescheduling journey.
“Trump is the wild card, and everything depends on him right now. Congress likely won’t pass anything with John Thune leading the charge, and enforcement could escalate as opponents dig for evidence to sway public opinion during hearings. Businesses should prioritize strict compliance to protect themselves. And just because Trump is neutral on cannabis doesn’t mean his supporters are.”
“It wouldn’t shock me to see someone like Derek Maltz, a retired DEA special agent focused on the fentanyl crisis, on the shortlist for DEA administrator. Tom Homan, the former Acting ICE Director, might also be a contender given the focus on border trafficking. Another potential candidate, Jack Riley, has publicly stated he wants the job. Riley is staunchly anti-cannabis, viewing it as a gateway drug, and his appointment would be disastrous for the industry.”
This was echoed by Paula Savchenko, Esq., founder of Cannacore Group and PS Law Group, who said: “A critical concern now is how the incoming Trump administration will influence this matter, particularly since the President-elect has yet to name a replacement to lead the DEA.
“While Trump has expressed support in recent months for easing certain federal restrictions on cannabis, it has not appeared to be a priority during his political tenure. The pivotal factor moving forward will be his choice to helm the DEA and that individual’s stance on cannabis policy.”
Regarding the postponement, Tharp suggested that delays should not come as a surprise to anyone who has been following the process to date, adding the advocates may even need to ‘push for delays to ensure a fair process’.
“While it’s obvious to many of us that the deck is stacked against rescheduling supporters, there’s no official ruling yet on whether the DEA was attempting to tilt the process.
“That said, the evidence presented in these hearings will form the record for federal appeals, so it’s critical the process remains fair. A rushed or biased outcome could lead to yet another ‘no’ on rescheduling.”
The ALJ directed the government and the appellants to submit a status update on the appeal within 90 days and to continue doing so every 90 days if the matter remains unresolved. Parties have 15 days from the date of the order to file an appeal.
“}]] The rescheduling of cannabis in the US, one of the most consequential cannabis reform efforts of the last century, is on increasingly uncertain ground amid a shock postponement and the Read More
