The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has landed in hot water for its failure to comply with explicit directives from its own administrative law judge in the ongoing marijuana rescheduling hearings. Chief Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney II minced no words in a scathing critique of the agency’s conduct, calling its actions “unprecedented and astonishing.”
DEA Faces Backlash for Defying Judge’s Orders
Judge Mulrooney issued a strong rebuke against the DEA on Monday, citing its non-compliance with an earlier directive. Specifically, the agency had been instructed to provide physical copies of its proposed testimony and evidence. Instead, the DEA submitted a compact disc containing the required materials, defying clear instructions.
Mulrooney’s criticism, documented in a court order, highlighted the deliberate nature of the defiance. He described the action as a blatant disregard for the tribunal’s authority, further emphasizing that such behavior is without precedent. The ruling also leaves open the possibility of sanctions against the DEA for its conduct.
For context, the hearings pertain to the Biden administration’s proposal to reclassify cannabis under federal law. Rescheduling marijuana could have significant implications for its regulation and availability across the United States.
Allegations of Bias Add Fuel to the Fire
In a separate but related matter, the DEA has also been accused of bias in its handling of the rescheduling process. A Jan. 6 filing from Hemp for Victory and Village Farms International alleges that the agency displayed favoritism by excluding Colorado from participation in the hearings while facilitating the involvement of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.
The DEA countered these allegations on Monday, arguing that Judge Mulrooney lacks the authority to disqualify the agency from the proceedings. It further asserted that there is insufficient evidence to support claims of bias.
The agency’s legal counsel, S. Taylor Johnson, defended the DEA’s actions, stating that its request for additional information from Tennessee’s investigators does not constitute impermissible conduct. Critics, however, remain skeptical, questioning whether the agency’s actions are intentionally slowing the rescheduling process.
Slow-Walking the Rescheduling Process?
Observers of the hearings are voicing concerns about potential delays in the rescheduling process. The hearings, which began in January, are set to continue until March. At the conclusion of the proceedings, Judge Mulrooney will issue a recommendation. However, the final decision rests with the incoming DEA administrator, who will serve under the next presidential administration.
This timeline has raised questions about whether the DEA is deliberately “slow-walking” the process to delay significant changes to federal cannabis policy. Advocates and industry stakeholders argue that such delays undermine public confidence in the agency’s ability to handle the rescheduling process transparently and efficiently.
Key Moments and Future Implications
Timeline of Recent Events:
- January 6, 2025: Allegations of bias against the DEA emerge in a formal filing.
- January 21, 2025: Scheduled resumption of hearings.
- March 2025: Conclusion of the hearings and issuance of Judge Mulrooney’s recommendation.
Implications:
Should cannabis be rescheduled, it would mark a historic shift in U.S. drug policy. This decision could open the door to increased research, revised criminal justice policies, and expanded access to cannabis for medical and potentially recreational use.
However, the current controversy raises concerns about whether procedural irregularities and accusations of bias could undermine public trust in the process.