The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is under scrutiny as it continues to operate outside the bounds of established law, particularly regarding its handling of cannabis regulation. Incoming Administrator Terrance Cole now faces the challenge of addressing the DEA’s controversial administrative law judge (ALJ) system, which has been deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. With both the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Congress expressing concerns about the legality of the DEA’s actions, Cole’s leadership will be pivotal in determining the future of the agency’s cannabis policies.
The DEA’s current approach has drawn criticism for ignoring executive orders and Supreme Court rulings, particularly in light of cases such as Axon v. FTC and Jarkesy v. SEC. Despite Attorney General Pam Bondi’s announcement that the DOJ would no longer defend the DEA’s ALJ framework, the agency scheduled another hearing involving MMJ BioPharma Cultivation, a compliant research firm focused on treatments for Multiple Sclerosis and Huntington’s Disease. This indicates a troubling trend of bureaucratic resistance against established legal standards.
The controversy centers around the use of ALJs, which are not removable by the President, violating the Appointments Clause and raising serious concerns about the separation of powers. Critics argue that the DEA’s actions represent a deliberate effort to obstruct scientific research and protect existing political interests within the cannabis industry. MMJ BioPharma’s CEO, Duane Boise, condemned the DEA’s tactics, stating that the agency’s requirement for businesses to experience irreparable harm before federal courts can intervene is a dangerous strategy that undermines accountability.
The institutional harm goes beyond individual companies; it poses a threat to the fundamental checks and balances within the U.S. government. By defying Supreme Court rulings and disregarding the DOJ’s constitutional analysis, the DEA risks operating as an unaccountable entity within the federal system.
Key figures within the DEA, including Thomas Prevoznik, Matthew Strait, and Aarathi Haig, have been identified as instrumental in perpetuating this problematic agenda. Haig, who faces legal challenges due to her ineligibility to practice law in New Jersey, continues to serve as lead attorney against MMJ BioPharma, raising ethical questions about the agency’s operations. Meanwhile, Prevoznik and Strait have been criticized for delaying legitimate cannabis research applications while overlooking illegal activities involving THC imports and exports.
To address these issues, Congress must take immediate action. Proposed measures include eliminating the use of ALJs in DEA enforcement, removing officials who violate ethical standards, transferring oversight of cannabis research to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and holding hearings to investigate the discord between the DOJ and DEA.
Failure to act could signal to the public that federal agencies like the DEA can operate without accountability or oversight. The current situation represents a constitutional crisis that undermines due process, scientific integrity, and accountable governance. As the DEA continues to resist legal standards, it may prompt calls for significant reforms or restructuring to ensure compliance with the law. The DEA’s future actions will be critical in determining whether it can regain legitimacy or if a complete overhaul is necessary.
German 
English 
Spanish 
Czech