Drug Enforcement Administration

Some Treaty Questions Answered, Shane Pennington, Feb 28, 2024
The Controlled Substances Act: An International Private Delegation That Goes Too Far, May 19, 2023, Shane Pennington & Matthew C. Zorn
Anslinger’s Treaty Trap, Shane Pennington, Dec 13, 2021

DEA Scheduling of Epidiolex® Revealed, October 1, 2018, Emily Cowley Leongini
The Order further explained that it was not necessary for the Attorney General to issue a scheduling order for Epidiolex through normal notice-and-comment rulemaking according to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), because the FDA approval of Epidiolex represented an expedited scheduling action.
As we noted previously, by statute, the DEA had 90 days from the approval date (technically September 23, a Sunday or the next business day September 24) to issue a scheduling decision, even though it could have potentially opted for the full APA process scheduling process, which would have taken much longer.

Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement in Schedule V of Certain FDA-Approved Drugs Containing Cannabidiol, Sept. 28, 2018

Regulatory Analyses

Administrative Procedure Act

The CSA provides for an expedited scheduling action where control of a drug is required by the United States' obligations under the Single Convention. 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1). Under such circumstances, the Attorney General must “issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations,” without regard to the findings or procedures otherwise required for scheduling actions. Id. (emphasis added). Thus, section 811(d)(1) expressly requires that this type of scheduling action not proceed through the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which generally apply to scheduling actions; it instead requires that such scheduling action occur through the issuance of an “order.”
Although the text of section 811(d)(1) thus overrides the normal APA considerations, it is notable that the APA itself contains a provision that would have a similar effect. As set forth in 21 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), the section of the APA governing rulemaking does not apply to a “foreign affairs function of the United States.” An order issued under section 811(d)(1) may be considered a foreign affairs function of the United States because it is for the express purpose of ensuring that the United States carries out its obligations under an international treaty.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
Administrative Law Judge Orders
Zorn: Marijuana Rescheduling Hearings
DEA Hearing Docket No. 24-44
2025-07-23: Administrative Law Judge Retired
2025-04-10: Joint Status Update on Interlocutory Appeal
2025-04-09: Judicial Review Withdrawn - U.S. Court of Appeals
2025-02-17: Judicial Review - U.S. Court of Appeals
2025-02-11: Order on Motion for Leave
2025-02-06: Order on Motions to Withdraw
2025-01-24: Freedom of Information Lawsuit
2025-01-22: Order on Motion for Leave
2025-01-15: ALJ Letter to DEA Regarding Stay and Appeal
2025-01-15: DOJ Reply to Heldreth Stay
2025-01-13: Order on Proposed Exhibits
2025-01-13: Order on Reconsideration
2025-01-13: DEA Response to Reconsideration
2025-01-07: Order Regarding Motion to Disqualify DEA
2025-01-06: Pennington Motion to Disqualify DEA
2024-12-20: DOJ Motion to Dismiss
2024-12-18: Substitution Order
2024-12-18: CBIH Order
2024-12-16: Motions Order
2024-12-13: CBIH Bortell
2024-12-13: NCIA Letter
2024-12-13: DEA Hearing Documents
2024-12-11: Veterans Action Council Appeal
2024-12-04: Motion to Stay
2024-12-04: Prehearing Ruling
2024-12-02: VIDEO: Hearing on Rescheduling
2024-11-28: Zorn v. DOJ
2024-11-27: Order Regarding SAM
2024-11-26: DEA Prehearing Statement
2024-11-25: Veterans Action Council Appeal
2024-11-25: SAM Reply
2024-11-25: DEA Reply
2024-11-25: Order Denying Request
2024-11-24: Request for Public Record
2024-11-21: Order Regarding MedPharm
2024-11-21: Order Regarding Supplementing the Record
2024-11-20: Order Regarding Motion to Disqualify DEA
2024-11-19: Order Regarding Standing
Note: 2024-11-29
2024-11-18: Pennington Motion to Disqualify DEA
2024-11-18: Heldreth Motion to Stay
2024-11-15: Order Regarding Veterans Action Council
2024-11-04: Heldreth Federal Lawsuit
2024-10-31: Preliminary Order

Marihuana Growers Information
Congressional Research Service, May 25, 2021
Office of Legal Counsel Opinion, June 6, 2018

Craker v. DEA, No. 21-1055, U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit

Advance Integrative Medical Science Institute v. DEA, No. 22-1568, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Advance Integrative Medical Science Institute v. DEA, No. 21-70544, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Scottsdale Research Institute v. DEA, No. 20-71433, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Scottsdale Research Institute v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 11 F.4th 1029 (9th Cir. 2021)

Olsen v. DEA, No. 11-1265 (DC Cir., 11/07/2012)
Olsen v. DEA, No. 11-1265 (DC Cir., 12/07/2011)
Olsen v. DEA, No. 11-1265 (DC Cir., 09/02/2011)
Olsen v. DEA, No. 11-5121 (DC Cir., 07/12/2011)
Olsen v. DEA, No. 13-484 (U.S., 11/18/2013)
Olsen v. DEA, No. 13-484 (U.S., 10/17/2013)
Olsen v. DEA, No. 13-484 (U.S., 10/17/2013)
Olsen v. DEA, 332 Fed. Appx. 359 (8th Cir. 2009)
Olsen v. DEA, 610 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Iowa 2009)
Olsen v. DEA, No. 09-1162 (8th Cir.)

United States v. California Bureau of Cannabis Control (August 31, 2020)
United States v. California Bureau of Cannabis Control (August 5, 2020)
United States v. California Bureau of Cannabis Control (July 29, 2020)
United States v. California Bureau of Cannabis Control (July 20, 2020)

Scottsdale Research Institute v. DEA, No. 19-1120 (DC Circuit)


Washington v. Barr, No. 18-859 (2nd Circuit)


Footnote 4: Petitioners also quarrel with the Administrator's decision that marijuana lacks "accepted safety for use." Since the Administrator based this determination on his decision that no medical uses are possible (and thus any use lacks "accepted safety"), we do not see that "safety" issue as raising a separate analytical question.

Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936, 940 (D.C. Cir. 1991)

The scheduling criteria of the Controlled Substances Act appear to treat the lack of medical use and lack of safety as separate considerations. Prior rules of this Agency purport to treat safety as a distinct factor. 53 FR 5156 (February 22, 1988). In retrospect, this is inconsistent with scientific reality. Safety cannot be treated as a separate analytical question.

57 FR 10499, Vol. 57, No. 59, p. 10504, Thursday, March 26, 1992

DEA Acting Administrator Chuck Rosenberg (2016):

Schedule I includes some substances that are exceptionally dangerous and some that are less dangerous (including marijuana, which is less dangerous than some substances in other schedules). That strikes some people as odd, but the criteria for inclusion in Schedule I is not relative danger.
 

Source: Drug Enforcement Administration (August 11, 2016) PDF

Opinion and Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision of Administrative Law Judge (September 6, 1988)

DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis Young (1988):

Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.
 

Source: DEA Docket No. 86-22 (September 6, 1988), pp. 58-59

28 C.F.R. §0.100 (2019)

Subpart R—Drug Enforcement Administration
§ 0.100 General functions.
The following-described matters are assigned to, and shall be conducted, handled, or supervised by, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration:
(a) Functions vested in the Attorney General by sections 1 and 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1968.
(b) Except where the Attorney General has delegated authority to another Department of Justice official to exercise such functions, and except where functions under 21 U.S.C. 878(a)(5) do not relate to, arise from, or supplement investigations of matters concerning drugs, functions vested in the Attorney General by the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. This will include functions which may be vested in the Attorney General in subsequent amendments to the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, and not otherwise specifically assigned or reserved by him.
(c) Functions vested in the Attorney General by section 1 of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973 and not otherwise specifically assigned.
[Order No. 520–73, 38 FR 18380, July 10, 1973, as amended by Order No. 960–81, 46 FR 52348, Oct. 27, 1981; Order No. 1203–87, 52 FR 24447, July 1, 1987; Order No. 2204–99, 64 FR 4295, Jan. 28, 1999; Order No. 2666–2003, 68 FR 14899, Mar. 27, 2003]