The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has informed an agency judge that the marijuana rescheduling process remains stalled, with no scheduled actions as the matter awaits review by the acting administrator. This official has previously referred to cannabis as a “gateway drug” and linked its use to psychosis.
Nearly three months have passed since DEA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John Mulrooney temporarily suspended hearings on a proposal to reclassify cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This proposal, initiated under the Biden administration, remains in limbo. According to a joint status report submitted on Thursday by DEA attorneys, “Pursuant to the Tribunal’s January 13, 2025 Order, the United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (Government or DEA), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby submits the ordered Joint Status Report on behalf of the Government and Movants.”
The report also states, “To date, Movants’ interlocutory appeal to the Acting Administrator regarding their Motion to Reconsider remains pending with the Acting Administrator. No briefing schedule has been set.”
The fate of marijuana rescheduling remains uncertain. If left to DEA Acting Administrator Derek Maltz, the outlook appears unfavorable for supporters of the policy shift. Maltz subscribes to the “gateway drug” theory regarding marijuana and argues that even in legalized states, most consumers will continue to purchase cannabis from illicit markets due to high taxation in regulated systems. Maltz, who retired from the DEA in 2014 after a 28-year tenure, has made a series of controversial remarks about cannabis, including claims linking marijuana use to school shootings. He has also repeatedly alleged that the Biden administration “hijacked” the rescheduling process for political reasons. “It sure seems to me that DOJ has prioritized politics and votes over public health and safety!” Maltz said in May 2024.
Originally, hearings on the rescheduling proposal were set to begin on January 21, but they were canceled when Mulrooney granted an appeal motion from pro-rescheduling advocates. These parties had requested a delay to file an interlocutory appeal over claims that certain DEA officials colluded with anti-rescheduling witnesses selected for the hearings.
Mulrooney ordered DEA and the witnesses to submit a joint status update within 90 days, a deadline that falls on this coming Sunday. The appeal stemmed from a previous motion seeking to remove DEA from the rescheduling proceedings entirely. Advocates argued that DEA was improperly designated as the primary “proponent” of the proposed rule, citing allegations of ex parte communications with anti-rescheduling witnesses that allegedly tainted the process. Meanwhile, the Justice Department requested a federal court in January to pause a lawsuit challenging DEA’s rescheduling process following Mulrooney’s decision to cancel the hearings. Also in January, Mulrooney criticized DEA for its “unprecedented and astonishing” refusal to comply with a key directive regarding evidence in the rescheduling proposal. The dispute centered on DEA’s insistence on digitally submitting tens of thousands of public comments it received in response to the proposal to move cannabis to Schedule III. As the rescheduling effort remains stalled, it is unclear when or if hearings will resume, leaving cannabis policy reform advocates in a continued state of uncertainty.
