Duane Boise MMJ's CEO stated "The DEA's administrative law judge (ALJ) system has been accused of functioning as a ‘judge, jury, and executioner,’ with Anne Milgram the DEA's administrator controlling the prosecutorial and adjudicatory roles, raising concerns about due process and fairness for small entities like MMJ. As this case unfolds, the potential ramifications for the DEA's operations - and marijuana rescheduling hearings - are profound."
WASHINGTON, DC / ACCESSWIRE / November 19, 2024 / The long-standing administrative practices of the DEA are under heightened scrutiny as the agency faces constitutional challenges questioning the legitimacy of its quasi-judicial processes. Among the most significant of these challenges is the lawsuit filed by MMJ BioPharma Cultivation, which contends that the DEA's administrative proceedings are unconstitutional. Recent legal precedents, such as the Supreme Court's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy and Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, could fundamentally disrupt the DEA's entrenched processes, including its pending marijuana rescheduling hearings.
The DEA's administrative law judge (ALJ) system has been accused of functioning as a "judge, jury, and executioner," with the agency controlling prosecutorial and adjudicatory roles, raising concerns about due process and fairness for small entities like MMJ. As these cases unfold, the potential ramifications for the DEA's operations - and marijuana rescheduling hearings - are profound.
A Broken System: Concentration of Power in DEA Administrative Proceedings
The DEA's ALJ system operates under a structure that combines investigatory, prosecutorial, and adjudicatory functions within the same agency. This model has faced sharp criticism for creating an inherent conflict of interest, where administrative law judges, while ostensibly impartial, are closely tied to the agency that employs them.
For MMJ, this system has resulted in years of delays, arbitrary decision-making, and a lack of meaningful recourse. After submitting its application to manufacture marijuana for pharmaceutical research in 2018, MMJ endured a prolonged five-year process without a resolution. This delay highlights how the DEA's unchecked discretion can obstruct legitimate research and innovation, especially for small businesses that lack the resources to withstand such prolonged delays.
Further, MMJ has alleged that the DEA's administrative hearings lack essential constitutional safeguards, such as unbiased decision-makers and judicial oversight. The combination of prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions, along with the insulation of ALJs from presidential removal, has created what MMJ describes as an "illegitimate proceeding, led by an illegitimate decisionmaker."
The Supreme Court's Jarkesy Decision: Implications for the DEA
The Supreme Court's recent decision in SEC v. Jarkesy has profound implications for the DEA's ALJ system. In Jarkesy, the Court ruled that administrative agencies, like the SEC, must bring certain enforcement actions in federal court rather than relying solely on their internal tribunals. Specifically, the Court found that when agencies seek civil penalties, defendants are entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.
While Jarkesy was directed at the SEC, the decision sets a broader precedent that could impact the DEA and other federal agencies. By asserting that constitutional protections must be afforded in administrative proceedings, the ruling raises questions about the legitimacy of the DEA's reliance on ALJs to make binding determinations, particularly when those decisions significantly affect regulated entities like MMJ.
For MMJ, Jarkesy provides a powerful precedent to argue that the DEA's administrative proceedings lack the constitutional protections required for fair adjudication. This could pave the way for MMJ to move its case from the administrative tribunal to federal court, where it would benefit from greater procedural safeguards and the right to a jury trial.
Axon Enterprise: Strengthening Challenges to Administrative Agencies
In Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, the Supreme Court further reinforced the right of entities to challenge the constitutionality of administrative proceedings. The Court held that plaintiffs can bring structural constitutional challenges against administrative agencies directly in federal court, without having to wait for the completion of the agency's proceedings.
For MMJ, this decision validates its strategy of challenging the DEA's ALJ process on constitutional grounds. The Supreme Court's recognition of "here-and-now injuries" - caused by being subjected to an unconstitutional proceeding - bolsters MMJ's claim that the DEA's administrative system violates the separation of powers and due process protections.
Key aspects of the Axon decision align with MMJ's arguments, including:
Bias and Lack of Accountability: Like the FTC in Axon, the DEA is accused of creating a system where ALJs are insulated from removal and lack accountability, violating Article II of the Constitution.
Collateral Challenges: MMJ's constitutional claims, such as the improper combination of prosecutorial and adjudicatory roles, are distinct from the merits of the underlying administrative case, making them appropriate for federal court review.
Impact on Marijuana Rescheduling Hearings
The implications of these legal developments extend beyond MMJ's specific case and will fundamentally alter the DEA's approach to marijuana rescheduling. The agency's current plan to conduct rescheduling hearings through its ALJ system is now under heightened scrutiny. The Jarkesy and Axon decisions raise significant questions about whether the DEA can continue to use its administrative tribunals to make binding determinations on such a critical issue.
If the courts find the DEA's ALJ process unconstitutional, the rescheduling hearings could face significant delays or require a complete overhaul. The DEA might be forced to conduct these proceedings in federal court, where stakeholders, including small businesses and medical researchers, would have greater protections and a more level playing field.
This shift could also amplify demands for transparency and accountability in the DEA's decision-making process. By moving away from administrative tribunals, the agency would face greater judicial oversight, reducing the risk of arbitrary or biased rulings.
A Path Toward Reform
MMJ BioPharma's lawsuit against the DEA is emblematic of broader concerns about the unchecked power of administrative agencies. The Supreme Court's decisions in Jarkesy and Axon have exposed significant constitutional flaws in the DEA's administrative system, creating an opportunity to challenge and reform these processes.
For small businesses like MMJ, the stakes are high. The DEA's current practices not only hinder innovation and research but also jeopardize the constitutional rights of those subjected to its proceedings. As the legal battles unfold, the potential for systemic change looms large, with the possibility of greater accountability, fairness, and transparency in the regulation of controlled substances.
For the DEA, the time for self-reflection and reform is now. As judicial scrutiny intensifies, the agency must adapt to a new legal landscape that prioritizes constitutional protections and due process. Whether through legislative action or judicial intervention, the era of "judge, jury, and executioner" administrative tribunals may soon come to an end.
MMJ is represented by attorney Megan Sheehan.
CONTACT:
Madison Hisey
[email protected]
203-231-8583
SOURCE: MMJ BioPharma Cultivation