By Court Rejects Stay Request
A federal appeals court has rejected a request from a drug testing industry association and a pharmaceutical company to block the Trump administration from moving forward with federal cannabis rescheduling while ongoing litigation challenging the reform is considered. “Petitioners have not satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending court review,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled on Wednesday.
The National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA) and MMJ International Holdings and its subsidiaries had argued in briefs supporting their motion for the court to put a stay on the rescheduling reform that “marijuana abuse has dangerous, lifelong consequences especially for adolescents and pregnant women.”
They also argued that “by cutting taxes on cannabis companies,” federal rescheduling “will stimulate the industry and increase marijuana abuse.”
Justice Department Opposition
The Department of Justice had opposed the request to pause rescheduling, noting in a brief that the entities challenging cannabis rescheduling have “pocketbook interests served by keeping all marijuana in schedule I” and are not suitable challengers to the reform because they are not the “intended beneficiaries” of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
The department’s position contrasted with that of the petitioners, who sought to halt the rescheduling process while the court considers their underlying challenge to the reform.
Intervention Motion Also Denied
Meanwhile, the court on Wednesday also rejected a request from two medical marijuana companies that had filed a motion to intervene in the rescheduling lawsuit by joining the side of the government and opposing the litigation from prohibitionists.
“Medical Marijuana Companies fail to demonstrate that their interests in this litigation are not adequately represented by existing parties,” the court’s order said, though it is allowing the companies to file amicus briefs in the case.
The rulings mean the rescheduling proceedings may continue while the litigation over the reform remains before the court.
