DEA Judge Blocks Researcher's Motion In Cannabis Rescheduling Case,

A DEA administrative law judge has denied MedPharm's motion to participate in the December 2 marijuana rescheduling hearing, deferring to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram's authority.

MedPharm, a DEA-registered research firm, criticized the exclusion of marijuana researchers and the inclusion of prohibitionist organizations, calling the process biased.

MedPharm’s Motion And Criticism

MedPharm filed a motion to intervene after being excluded from the witness list, arguing the fact that no DEA-licensed marijuana researchers were included.

"The deck appears to be stacked against those in favor" of rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), MedPharm noted.

It also alleged that the witness list, which included the anti-cannabis prohibitionist group Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), undermines the legitimacy of the process, describing the decision as an attempt to “thwart a legitimate process,” as reported Marijuana Moment.

Read Also: DEA Slammed For Unlawful Talks With Cannabis Opponents – The Plot Thickens

Get Benzinga’s exclusive analysis and the top news about the cannabis industry and markets daily in your inbox for free. Subscribe to our newsletter here. If you’re serious about the business, you can’t afford to miss out.

Judge Mulrooney's Decision

DEA Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney denied MedPharm's motion, citing statutory limits on his authority.

"The Administrator exercised her discretion to fix the number of participants," Mulrooney said, adding that expanding the list would exceed his role under the Administrative Procedures Act.

Mulrooney acknowledged the value of wider input but noted that the DEA prioritizes participants who can demonstrate adverse impacts from the proposed policy change, which becomes apparent by viewing the biased list.

The exclusion of key scientific voices has raised concerns about the process's fairness, particularly as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the DEA’s Office of Legal Counsel support rescheduling.

The upcoming hearing will allow cross-examination of witnesses from both sides, but critics warn the imbalance could skew outcomes. Mulrooney is leading another case where the DEA is accused of engaging in unlawful conversations with anti-cannabis groups ahead of the December 2 hearing.

• Read Next: DEA Is Compromised, DOJ Should Replace It In Cannabis Rescheduling, Claims Joint Motion

Cover: AI generated image