Newly surfaced court documents have reignited suspicions that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) intentionally stacked the deck against marijuana rescheduling. A lawsuit filed by a group of pro-cannabis doctors claims the agency handpicked participants to tilt the outcome in its favor—excluding key voices that supported the change.
The lawsuit, filed by Doctors for Drug Policy Reform (DDPR) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, points to internal DEA records showing a questionable selection process. Of 163 applicants, only 25 were chosen under undisclosed criteria, while officials from cannabis-friendly states like New York and Colorado were outright rejected. Even more concerning, the documents suggest the DEA actively assisted nearly a dozen opponents of marijuana rescheduling.
With the cannabis industry watching closely, these revelations fuel skepticism over whether the rescheduling process is truly impartial—or if it’s just another bureaucratic blockade to maintain the status quo.
Evidence of Bias Sparks Legal Battle
DDPR’s lawsuit, originally filed in November, seeks transparency. The group wants the DEA to either redo the witness selection process or, at the very least, explain how it made its choices.
For Dr. Bryon Adinoff, an addiction psychiatrist and president of DDPR, the court documents confirm long-standing fears. “It confirms what we thought,” he told MJBizDaily, pointing to the DEA’s selective approval of testimonies.
• The agency allowed testimony from just 25 individuals out of 163 who applied.
• Rejections included officials from pro-cannabis states like New York and Colorado.
• The DEA allegedly assisted nearly a dozen opponents of rescheduling.
If the DEA’s process was indeed rigged, Adinoff argues that stopping or restarting it would be better than allowing a biased decision to stand. “We’re better off arguing the case where we are now than going forward and having it not work in our favor,” he said.
Why Rescheduling Matters for the Cannabis Industry
The push to move marijuana from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3 under federal law is more than just symbolic. The $32 billion U.S. cannabis industry stands to gain major financial benefits, particularly when it comes to taxes.
Under current law, cannabis businesses are barred from deducting standard expenses due to IRS tax code 280E, which applies to Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 substances. Rescheduling would lift that restriction, allowing businesses to operate under fairer tax rules.
It could also open the door for broader cannabis reform at the federal level. Some believe that a DEA endorsement of rescheduling could pressure Congress to take further action on stalled marijuana policy changes.
Ongoing Appeal Seeks to Remove DEA from the Process
The DEA has long been accused of obstructing cannabis policy reform. The latest legal battle isn’t just about this specific rescheduling attempt—it’s about whether the DEA should have the final say at all.
A separate appeal argues that the DEA should be removed as the primary decision-maker on marijuana scheduling, given its history of resistance. That case remains unresolved, but it signals growing frustration with how the agency handles cannabis-related decisions.
For now, the DEA maintains that it followed legal protocol. But with more documents coming to light, the pressure is mounting for the agency to defend its process—or risk losing credibility altogether.