DEA Judge Stays Marijuana Rescheduling Case, Gives Government Until October 13 to Respond

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has been given until October 13 to respond to a request to reopen the record in the federal marijuana rescheduling case, with the judge overseeing the proceeding placing the case on hold in the meantime.

Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek C. Julius issued the stay September 29, delaying further action toward his recommended decision on whether marijuana should be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act.

The evidentiary hearing concluded in July and post-hearing briefing has already been completed. But on September 28, three parties opposed to rescheduling asked Julius to consider a Government Accountability Office report released days earlier examining deficiencies in federal drug-scheduling procedures.

DUID Victim Voices, Kenneth Finn, M.D., and the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association are seeking to have the report added to the administrative record and to submit additional arguments concerning its potential relevance to the case.

Julius has not decided whether to grant that request.

Instead, his September 29 order stays the case while he considers the motion. Julius said that if the record is expanded to include the report, additional briefing before a recommended decision would be appropriate.

DEA must submit its response by October 13 and may use up to 20 pages. Other participants in the hearing are allowed, but not required, to respond by the same date.

Their motion asks Julius to admit the GAO report as a supplemental exhibit or take official notice of it, allow additional briefing of up to 10 pages and delay his recommended decision until that briefing is complete.

The judge has so far granted only the immediate pause while deciding what to do with the request.

The marijuana rescheduling hearing ran from June 29 through July 15. DEA has argued in the proceeding that marijuana no longer satisfies the requirements for Schedule I because it has an accepted medical use in the United States and that its abuse and dependence profile more closely resembles substances in Schedule III.