Politics
Lawmakers Could Reschedule Marijuana With ‘Greater Speed And Flexibility’ Than Administration Officials, Congressional Researchers Say
Amid a stalled marijuana rescheduling process that’s carried over from the last presidential administration, congressional researchers are reiterating that lawmakers could enact the reform themselves with “greater speed and flexibility” if they so choose, while potentially avoiding judicial challenges.
In an “In Focus” brief published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) last week, analysts provided an overview of the different mechanisms through which scheduling actions can be implemented, noting the limitations of the process that the Biden administration initiated—and that the Trump administration has since inherited—to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
“There are two ways in which substances can be scheduled under the CSA: Congress can schedule substances by enacting legislation, or the Attorney General (in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS) can schedule substances via an administrative process laid out in the CSA,” CRS said.
For this report, which is an update to an earlier analysis CRS put out last year, researchers detailed various instances where Congress has stepped in and made a scheduling decision—such as the federal legalization of hemp under the 2018 Farm Bill.
“Congress placed numerous substances in Schedules I through V when it enacted the CSA in 1970,” it says. “Since the CSA’s enactment, most subsequent scheduling changes have been made by DEA via the rulemaking process, but Congress has at times enacted legislation to schedule controlled substances or change the status of existing controlled substances.”
“There are several reasons why Congress might decide to schedule or reschedule substances via legislation,” it says. “For instance, compared to administrative scheduling, legislative scheduling may offer greater speed and flexibility.”
“Administrative scheduling under the CSA proceeds via formal rulemaking, which generally takes months or years to complete. In making scheduling decisions, DEA is required by statute to make certain findings with respect to each substance’s potential for abuse and accepted medical use,” it continues. “DEA scheduling orders (other than temporary scheduling orders) are subject to judicial review, including consideration of whether the agency properly applied the relevant statutory standards.”
To that point, it did take 11 months for HHS under the Biden administration to complete its review into cannabis and make an initial rescheduling recommendation. DEA then completed a separate review before the Justice Department formally proposed moving marijuana to Schedule III—but even then, there have been months of delay in the administrative hearing process to potentially finalize the rule.
Congress, on the other hand, could reschedule or deschedule marijuana more quickly and with a lower threat of a judicial challenge, CRS said.
“Congress is not bound by the CSA’s substantive or procedural requirements,” the report says. “This means that it can schedule a substance immediately, regardless of whether the substance meets the statutory criteria. While scheduling legislation may also be challenged in court, the scope of judicial review of legislation is typically more limited than judicial review of regulations.”
It also says legislative action “may be the only way to permanently schedule large classes of substances” such as fentanyl-related substances, given the intensive statutory requirements imposed on DEA under the CSA.
“Relatedly, the CSA provides DEA with limited options for regulating controlled substances,” CRS said. “The CSA established Schedules I-V, with each schedule carrying a defined set of regulatory controls and penalties for unauthorized activities. If DEA decides to control a substance under the CSA, it must place the substance in one of the existing schedules.”
“The agency has asserted some authority to tailor controls to specific substances, but it cannot create new schedules or implement regulations or exceptions from control that are not authorized under the CSA. If Congress wishes to regulate a controlled substance in a way that does not fit within the existing CSA framework, or allow DEA to do so, it must enact legislation.”
Additionally, the report notes that while DEA is bound to consider certain international treaty obligations when it comes to drug scheduling, those same commitments “do not prevent Congress from exercising its constitutional authority to enact new laws, even when doing so might cause the United States to violate its treaty obligations.”
Meanwhile, last month a Senate committee advanced the confirmation of Terrance Cole to become the administrator of DEA amid the ongoing review of a marijuana rescheduling proposal that he’s refused to commit to enacting.
Cole—who has previously voiced concerns about the dangers of marijuana and linked its use to higher suicide risk among youth—said he would “give the matter careful consideration after consulting with appropriate personnel within the Drug Enforcement Administration, familiarizing myself with the current status of the regulatory process, and reviewing all relevant information.”
However, during an in-person hearing before the Judiciary Committee in April, he said examining the rescheduling proposal will be “one of my first priorities” if he was confirmed for the role, saying it’s “time to move forward” on the stalled process—but again without clarifying what end result he would like to see.
“I’m not familiar exactly where we are, but I know the process has been delayed numerous times—and it’s time to move forward,” he said at the time. “I need to understand more where [agencies] are and look at the science behind it and listen to the experts and really understand where they are in the process.”
Cole also said he feels it’s appropriate to form a “working group” to look at the federal-state marijuana law disconnect in order to “stay ahead of it.”
DEA recently notified an agency judge that the proceedings are still on hold—with no future actions currently scheduled. The matter sat without action before an acting administrator, Derek Maltz, who has called cannabis a “gateway drug” and linked its use to psychosis. Maltz has since left the position.
Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images.
