Longstanding Suspicions Confirmed: DEA Accused of Rigging Cannabis Rescheduling Process

Longstanding suspicions that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is adamantly opposed to marijuana rescheduling—and manipulated the public process to ensure it could reject moving the drug from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3 under federal law—are being substantiated by agency decisions made public during an ongoing lawsuit.

At least, that’s the claim made in a Feb. 17 federal court filing by a group of doctors who were excluded from the rescheduling process.

Court Filing by Doctors Alleges DEA Bias and Secretive Decision-Making

According to DEA documents revealed as part of a lawsuit brought by Doctors for Drug Policy Reform (DDPR), a group of pro-cannabis research medical professionals, the federal drug agency:

Considered a total of 163 applicants.

Selected only 25 based on undisclosed criteria.

Rejected participation requests from New York and Colorado officials, both of whom supported rescheduling.

Allegedly aided nearly a dozen opponents of marijuana rescheduling.

This represents the most comprehensive disclosure to date regarding the DEA’s internal actions during the marijuana rescheduling process.

DDPR President Speaks Out

“It confirms what we thought,” said Dr. Bryon Adinoff, a Colorado-based addiction psychiatrist, academic, and DDPR president. The DDPR’s court action, initially filed in November, aims to compel the DEA to redo its witness-selection process or, at a minimum, force the agency to explain its actions.

The lawsuit, filed by attorney Austin Brumbaugh of the Houston-based Yetter Coleman firm, is still pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Part of DDPR’s objective was to determine if the DEA’s process was “fixed.”

“And it appears to be,” Adinoff said, adding that pausing the process or forcing a restart is preferable to proceeding with an outcome that seems predetermined.

DEA’s Actions Come Under Scrutiny Amid Broader Concerns Over Bias

Adinoff’s allegations add to a growing chorus of accusations against the DEA for its handling of marijuana policy. A separate appeal seeking to remove the DEA as the ultimate decision-maker in the rescheduling process is also pending.

Rescheduling marijuana would provide much-needed tax relief to businesses in the $32 billion U.S. cannabis industry and could pave the way for further legislative reforms in Washington, D.C.

Some policy experts had previously believed the DEA would approve the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) August 2023 finding that marijuana has a “currently accepted medical use.” That belief was further supported by a September 2023 Congressional Research Service analysis, which concluded that the DEA is legally bound to follow health and science recommendations from other federal agencies.

However, skepticism regarding the DEA’s neutrality arose after the Justice Department published its May 2024 proposal to reschedule marijuana. Footnotes in an April 2024 memo from the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel indicate that the DEA internally argued against rescheduling and disputed the HHS’s new standard for determining medical use.

Rescheduling Process Faces Uncertain Future Amid Legal Challenges

Marijuana rescheduling, initiated in October 2022 by former President Joe Biden, was described as “the most consequential rulemaking DEA has ever attempted” by a group of former DEA administrators in a letter last summer, which has now surfaced as part of the lawsuit.

The process has since been put on hold due to multiple appeals and pending decisions from the new administration. DEA hearings, originally scheduled to conclude on March 6, were delayed indefinitely in January due to legal challenges.

Former DEA Administrator Anne Milgram released a list of 25 participants in October 2023 who were selected to testify in hearings before DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney II. However, she did not disclose the selection criteria or whether the participants supported or opposed rescheduling.

DEA’s ‘Secret’ Selection Process Draws Further Scrutiny

Court documents reveal that the DEA’s nearly 1,700-page document cache indicates a “secret selection process … guided by the improper aim of creating an evidentiary record that will allow the agency to reject the proposed rule,” according to Adinoff’s filing.

While the DEA rejected participation requests from New York and Colorado officials, it selected a representative from Connecticut’s cannabis patient community—a decision Adinoff called “nonsensical.” The Connecticut representative later withdrew from the process.

Additionally, the DEA sent “self-styled ‘cure letters’” to 12 applicants, requesting further information to establish that they met the federal standard of being “adversely affected or aggrieved by the proposed rule.”

Notably, nine of these letters were sent to individuals or groups strongly opposed to rescheduling. Only one was sent to a known supporter—the University of California, San Diego’s Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR). Despite submitting additional information supporting rescheduling, the DEA ultimately rejected CMCR’s application without explanation.

Strong Evidence of Bias, Say Legal Experts and Advocates

The lawsuit contends that the DEA’s actions provide “strong evidence” that the agency acted with an “impermissible purpose” to construct an evidentiary record favoring its preferred outcome: rejection of marijuana rescheduling.

Observers and rejected participants agree.

Cat Packer, director of drug markets and legal regulation at the Drug Policy Alliance and a distinguished cannabis policy expert at Ohio State University’s Drug Enforcement and Policy Center. Packer attempted to participate in the hearings but was denied.