The rescheduling of cannabis has hit a significant roadblock, with confusion and controversy surrounding a motion for an interlocutory appeal. Ellen Brown, a U.S. Air Force veteran and medical cannabis advocate, found herself unintentionally drawn into the dispute, sparking concerns over fairness, consent, and transparency in this pivotal process.
Brown had been prepared to present expert testimony on Jan. 28 before an administrative law judge (ALJ) as part of a historic hearing on cannabis rescheduling. Instead, she now finds herself battling to clarify her stance after being mistakenly associated with a motion she never agreed to.
A Rare Chance for Reform Hits a Snag
For over 50 years, cannabis has been classified as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act, grouped alongside heroin and LSD. Brown, like many advocates, saw this hearing as a generational opportunity to challenge that designation and potentially reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III substance.
“It was a chance for real dialogue,” Brown explained. “A chance to put expert evidence on the table and see where we stand as a nation on this issue.”
The hearing, overseen by Chief ALJ John J. Mulrooney, included approval for Brown’s expert witness, Dr. Marion McNabb. McNabb, an experienced researcher, was poised to testify on cannabis’s medical applications and its potential for misuse—key considerations in determining its rescheduling.
However, the process took an unexpected turn. On Jan. 8, Brown discovered through news reports that her name was attached to a motion she neither knew about nor supported. The motion sought to challenge the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) role in the proceedings and requested an interlocutory appeal—a procedural move that triggered a minimum 90-day delay.
A Mistaken Motion Creates a Ripple Effect
The motion in question was submitted by attorney Shane Pennington on behalf of several parties advocating for rescheduling. Pennington’s motion argued that the DEA had unfairly collaborated with anti-rescheduling groups, creating a biased hearing process. Brown’s legal counsel, Matthew Zorn, contributed edits to the motion but failed to exclude her name in the filing.
The error stemmed from an inadvertent use of “et al.” next to Zorn’s signature, implying that all his clients—including Brown—were part of the motion. This misstep left Brown associated with a procedural move she strongly opposed.
“I wasn’t even aware of the document or its implications,” Brown said. “Had I known, I would’ve objected immediately.”
Fallout and Frustration Among Advocates
The fallout from the motion has sparked tensions within the pro-rescheduling community. Advocates who support the reclassification of cannabis have criticized the appeal as a disruptive distraction. Khurshid Khoja, legal counsel for the National Cannabis Industry Association, labeled the motion a “procedural sideshow” that derailed momentum for reform.
Brown echoed similar frustrations, emphasizing the potential harm caused by the delay. “This was supposed to be about preserving the record, not shutting everything down,” she said.
The delay not only undermines the efforts of reform advocates but also raises questions about how procedural errors could jeopardize such a crucial hearing.
A Timeline of Errors and Corrections
The timeline of events highlights how communication breakdowns led to the controversy:
- Jan. 6: Zorn reviewed the motion to reconsider but did not remove “et al.” from his signature block.
- Jan. 8: Brown first learned of her unintended association with the motion through media reports.
- Jan. 13: Mulrooney granted the interlocutory appeal and issued a 90-day stay in the hearing.
- Jan. 14: Brown asked Zorn to remove her name from the motion.
- Jan. 15: Zorn filed a notice of clarification, admitting the inclusion of Brown’s name was an error.
Zorn also withdrew as Brown’s counsel, citing the clerical mistake and communication challenges.
A Fragile Process Faces Uncertain Future
For Brown, the situation represents more than a legal mix-up; it’s a deeply personal blow to her advocacy work. “We’ve waited decades for this chance, and now it feels like we’re back to square one,” she said.
The stay order has thrown the rescheduling process into uncertainty, with no guarantee that the hearing will resume promptly. Brown remains focused on clearing her name and ensuring the integrity of the hearing, but the broader implications of this delay weigh heavily on her.
“This was the closest we’ve come in over 50 years,” she said. “To see it all jeopardized like this is devastating.”
Brown’s experience underscores the need for accountability and transparency in high-stakes regulatory processes. For advocates of cannabis reform, the stakes couldn’t be higher.