01-13-2025
This decision stems from allegations of improper conduct by DEA Administrator Anne Milgram and other officials, though Mulrooney ultimately rejected calls to remove the agency from the rescheduling process entirely. The judge ordered either party to provide an update on the appeal’s status within 90 days, with additional updates required every subsequent 90 days if the issues remain unresolved.
While Mulrooney cited statutory limitations on his authority to remove the DEA as the proponent of the proposal to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act, he sharply criticized the agency’s procedural actions. He argued that these missteps could delay the rulemaking indefinitely, particularly with a new administration set to take office next week.Central to the motion for DEA’s removal are claims that agency officials conspired with anti-rescheduling witnesses selected for the hearing. Mulrooney described these allegations as a “disturbing and embarrassing revelation”.
In the order canceling the hearing, Murlooney said “I can no more remove or re-designate the Administrator than I can hold parties in contempt and fine them. The strangeness of this unsupported approach is amplified by the fact that the appointment of a new DEA Administrator by a different political party is imminent.”
Mulrooney says “the hearing on the merits that was scheduled to commence on January 21, 2025 is CANCELLED, and proceedings in this matter are STAYED”.
In regards to the allegations against the DEA, Murlooney said “If true, viewed in the best light, these allegations demonstrate a puzzling and grotesque lack of understanding and poor judgment from high-level officials at a major federal agency with a wealth of prior experience”.
Mulrooney cancelling the hearing comes shortly after he issued a scathing order criticizing the government for failing to comply with procedural directives in its submission of evidence.
“Even among the numerous extraordinary and puzzling actions taken thus far by the Government during the course of this litigation, this disobedience of an unequivocal directive from the tribunal is unprecedented and astonishing”, he said in the order.
The hearings would have started January 21, and ran through March 6.
Comments