According to reports, new court documents have provided fresh evidence indicating that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is biased in the process of reclassifying marijuana, a procedure overseen by the agency itself.
The highly anticipated marijuana reclassification process is regarded as one of the most significant drug policy reforms in modern U.S. history. However, due to allegations of bias involving the DEA, the process has now been indefinitely suspended. Long-standing suspicions that the DEA adamantly opposes reclassifying marijuana and has manipulated public procedures to ensure its ability to deny moving it from Schedule I to Schedule III under federal law have been confirmed in an ongoing lawsuit.
This week, another legal challenge emerged between the DEA and Doctors for Drug Policy Reform (D4DPR), a nonprofit group comprising over 400 medical professionals. New evidence obtained by the court substantiates the DEA’s bias. The group of doctors, excluded from the marijuana reclassification process, filed allegations on February 17 in federal court, focusing on the opaque selection process for witnesses summoned to testify at the reclassification hearing, originally scheduled for January 2025. In fact, D4DPR’s lawsuit was first initiated last November, aiming to compel the DEA to reopen the witness selection process or, if the lawsuit fails, at least require the agency to explain its actions.
According to “Marijuana Business”, evidence submitted in the ongoing court case reveals that the DEA initially selected 163 applicants but, based on “still-unknown criteria,” ultimately chose only 25.
Shane Pennington, representing the participating group, spoke on a podcast, calling for an interlocutory appeal. This appeal has led to the indefinite suspension of the process. He stated, “If we could see those 163 documents, I believe 90% of them would come from entities supporting marijuana reclassification.” The DEA sent 12 so-called “remedial letters” to participants in the reclassification process, requesting additional information to prove their eligibility as “persons adversely affected or aggrieved by the proposed rule” under federal law. Copies of these letters included in the court filings reveal significant bias in their distribution. Among the 12 recipients, nine were entities strongly opposed to marijuana reclassification, indicating a clear DEA preference for prohibitionists. Only one letter was sent to a known supporter of reclassification—the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR) at the University of California, San Diego, which is essentially a government entity. However, after the center provided the requested information and confirmed its support for the reform, the DEA ultimately rejected its participation without explanation.
Regarding the remedial letters, Pennington remarked, “I knew that what we were seeing with the DEA’s unilateral communications was just the tip of the iceberg, meaning there were behind-the-scenes secret dealings in this administrative hearing process. What I didn’t expect was that the vast majority of these 12 remedial letters sent to different entities were from opponents of reclassification.”
Additionally, it was reported that the DEA outright rejected participation requests from officials in New York and Colorado, as both applying agencies support marijuana reclassification. During the process, the DEA also attempted to assist over a dozen opponents of marijuana reclassification reform. Industry insiders describe this as the most comprehensive disclosure to date of the DEA’s actions in the reclassification process. The case, filed by Austin Brumbaugh of Houston’s Yetter Coleman law firm, is currently under review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Looking ahead, the outcome of this hearing could significantly impact the marijuana reclassification process. Pennington believes these revelations of behind-the-scenes manipulation only strengthen the case for marijuana reform, as they highlight serious flaws in the regulatory approach. “This can only help, as it confirms everything people have suspected,” he noted.
It is worth noting that these findings and disclosures pertain to the previous DEA leadership under Anne Milgram. The Trump administration has since replaced Milgram with Terrance C. Cole.
Now, the question is how the Trump administration will handle these developments. The new administration must decide whether to continue a process that has eroded public trust or adopt a more transparent approach. Regardless, a choice must be made.
Post time: Mar-31-2025