The words “expedited hearing” are losing their grip on the cannabis rescheduling process, as the judge assigned to the task entertains reopening the proceedings “for limited discovery and testimony” at the demand of prohibitionist parties.
Derek C. Julius, the Drug Enforcement Administration’s chief administrative law judge, granted another motion on Oct. 14 to allow anti-rescheduling parties to reply to a recent DEA filing, and he ordered the DEA to respond to the opponents’ request to reopen the hearing process for additional testimony and discovery.
This latest development comes after the DEA filed a response Oct. 9 that opposed three anti-rescheduling parties’ pending request to reopen the record to allow additional legal arguments amid new evidence: a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report from Sept. 23 that found the DEA’s drug scheduling policies have “gaps.”
The judge has yet to decide whether to allow the GAO report into the administrative record, which was otherwise wrapped up before this last-minute curveball: The 11-day hearing process to debate the merits of a proposed Schedule III rule concluded on July 15; the participating parties filed their post-hearing briefs on Aug. 17; and Julius released more than 2,500 pages of transcripts on Aug. 25.
This hearing process evolved at the request of U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, who on April 23 signed an order for a “new expedited hearing with set deadlines, to fully reschedule marijuana.”
The last remaining step was for Julius to certify the record and make his nonbinding recommendation to DEA Administrator Terry Cole.
But in light of the Sept. 23 GAO report, three of the seven anti-rescheduling parties that participated in the hearing – DUID Victim Voices, Kenneth Finn, M.D., and the National Drug and Alcohol Association – are now arguing that the report contains evidence that they could not develop during the hearing that would have backed their position that cannabis should remain listed in Schedule I.
Julius granted the three parties’ request for a “brief stay” on Sept. 29 to “allow time for these matters to develop,” ordering the DEA to file its response within two weeks.
In that response, the DEA opposed three anti-rescheduling parties’ request that Julius allow them to enter additional legal arguments/briefings into the record. Meanwhile, the DEA took no stance on whether the actual GAO report should be entered into the record, instead deferring to the judge.
“The GAO report itself is new; however, the information contained within is not,” the DEA’s legal counsel wrote. “Notably, the [anti-rescheduling parties] do not cite anything in the GAO report that points toward DEA and FDA’s rescheduling process not being in accordance with the law. Rather, [their] argument depends solely on the gaps in the memorialization of [the] rescheduling process, not any flaws in the rescheduling process itself. Such distinction does not constitute new evidence to warrant additional briefing and further delay of this process.”
After the DEA filed that response, the three anti-rescheduling parties filed two new motions this week, requesting Julius provide them the opportunity to reply to the DEA’s opposition, and to “reopen the hearing for limited discovery and testimony” if the GAO report is admitted into the record.
This represents a slippery slope: If other government entities release additional reports as this matter develops, it could create an ongoing loop of closing and reopening the hearing process for new rounds of testimony, despite Blanche specifically ordering the hearing to conclude on July 15, 2026.
Although Julius granted the anti-rescheduling parties’ first request in the two new motions – to reply to the DEA’s opposition – he still hasn’t ruled on whether to admit the GAO report into the record.
Before he decides, the judge ordered the DEA to reply to the anti-rescheduling parties’ second request to reopen the hearing to discovery and testimony by Oct. 21.
“This matter remains STAYED to allow time for a response and to allow time for the tribunal to consider the pending motions,” Julius wrote.
