A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) administrative law judge has set the start of the public hearing on marijuana rescheduling for January.
The hearings, starting January 21, will feature arguments from the DEA, proponents of the rescheduling proposal, and designated opposition groups. Each participant will present their case on assigned dates, with sessions extending into early March.
The full schedule is as follows:
- 1/21/2025: Government
- 1/22/2025: Hemp for Victory
- 1/23/2025: Cannabis Bioscience International Holdings
- 1/28/2025: Connecticut Office of the Cannabis Ombudsman
- 1/29/2025: National Cannabis Industry Association
- 1/30/2025: Village Farms International
- 2/4/2025: The Commonwealth Project
- 2/5/2025: Veterans Initiative 22
- 2/6/2025: Dr. Ari Kirshenbaum
- 2/18/2025: Tennessee Bureau of Investigation
- 2/19/2025: International Association of Chiefs of Police
- 2/20/2025: Drug Enforcement Association of Federal Narcotics Agents
- 2/25/2025: Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and State of Nebraska
- 2/26/2025: Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (
- 2/27/2025: Cannabis Industry Victims Educating Litigators
- 3/4/2025: Dr. Kenneth Finn
- 3/5/2025: National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association
- 3/6/2025: Dr. Phillip Drum
Judge Mulrooney criticized the agency for refusing to provide a comprehensive list of evidence it intends to present during the upcoming proceedings.
“For reasons that are not altogether apparent, although directed to do so in the November 19, 2024 Standing Order, the Government did not supply the complete list of documentary evidence it intended to offer into the record,” said Mulrooney. “Instead, the Government noticed a few documents and indicated below the line that notice of more documents could be forthcoming upon a supplemental filing date.”
He continues by saying “In fairness to the Government’s position, a supplemental prehearing statement date is not an uncommon feature of DEA administrative enforcement proceedings. There will be no supplemental prehearing statements in this formal rulemaking proceeding, and the Government is herein DIRECTED to furnish a complete list no later than The Homework Date [of December 13]”.
In a footnote within the new order, the judge emphasized that the more than 43,000 public comments the DEA received following the notice of proposed rulemaking “are not evidence”.
“Congress understood that when it drafted the Administrative Procedures Act, as did the Agency when it drafted its regulations. If the Comments are not admissible evidence they cannot be considered in the recommended decision”, said Mulrooney. “Admitting the Comments into to a hearing record where they cannot be considered would indeed be a pointless exercise.”
He further elaborated, “On a more pragmatic level, to attempt to foist a gargantuan mass of inadmissible comments on the tribunal risks the appearance (even if subjectively unwarranted) of a dilatory tactic inflicted on the trier of fact by the agency that represents itself as the proponent of the rule.”
