Arizona Tribune - How the DEA Is Trying to Railroad MMJ Biopharma Marijuana Cultivation in Defiance of Supreme Court Axon Ruling

WASHINGTON, DC / ACCESS Newswire / April 10, 2025 / The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is currently embroiled in a high-stakes legal battle with MMJ BioPharma Cultivation, a biopharmaceutical company developing marijuana-derived treatments for Huntington's Disease and Multiple Sclerosis. But beneath the surface of this dispute lies a broader constitutional crisis: the DEA appears to be ignoring a landmark Supreme Court decision in Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, effectively attempting to railroad MMJ through an administrative process that the Court has already flagged as structurally flawed

At the center of MMJ's case is the argument that DEA administrative law judges (ALJs) are unconstitutionally insulated from removal, violating separation-of-powers principles. In Axon, the Supreme Court affirmed that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear structural constitutional challenges to agency proceedings before those proceedings are completed. The ruling was clear: litigants need not exhaust internal agency processes when the legitimacy of the agency's very structure is in question.

Despite this, the DEA has continued to press forward with administrative proceedings against MMJ, seemingly disregarding the precedent set by Axon. Even more egregiously, DEA officials initially contested MMJ's constitutional claims, only to later concede that the DEA's ALJ removal protections are, in fact, unconstitutional. That concession should have been a watershed moment-an acknowledgment that the proceedings were tainted from the outset. Instead, the DEA has doubled down, arguing that MMJ must still demonstrate "irreparable harm" to invalidate the flawed process.

This tactic is a transparent end-run around Axon. The DEA is effectively saying, "Yes, the structure is unconstitutional, but unless you can prove it harmed you personally, we get to continue anyway." This ignores the Supreme Court's clear directive: structural defects don't require a showing of harm to warrant judicial intervention. The very purpose of Axon was to prevent exactly this type of procedural abuse.

Further compounding the agency's credibility crisis is the ethical misconduct of its lead attorney in the case, Aarathi Haig. Haig has been found ineligible to practice law in New Jersey due to failure to meet Continuing Legal Education (CLE) requirements and other obligations-a violation of 28 U.S.C. § 530B, which mandates that federal attorneys comply with state bar rules. How can the DEA, which demands strict compliance from private parties, justify allowing an ineligible attorney to prosecute high-stakes regulatory actions?

MMJ's lawsuit also highlights statutory violations by the DEA. Under the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act (MCREA), the DEA is required to respond to applications within 60 days. MMJ's application has languished for over 7 years, with no final action-a glaring breach of federal law and a disservice to patients waiting for life-changing treatments.

In a rare move that signals judicial recognition of MMJ's arguments, DEA Administrative Law Judge Teresa Wallbaum stayed the agency's own proceedings, citing the constitutional issues as "novel" and worthy of federal court review. MMJ has since filed a Motion for Reconsideration, bolstered by the DEA's concession on the ALJ removal issue. The motion could revive the case in federal court and force the DEA to finally reckon with its legal obligations.

Meanwhile, public and political pressure continues to mount. Lawmakers, legal scholars, and patient advocates have all called for greater accountability and reform. The idea that an agency can violate statutory deadlines, prosecute with ineligible counsel, and ignore Supreme Court rulings while holding others to exacting standards is not just hypocritical-it's dangerous.

If allowed to stand, the DEA's actions will set a chilling precedent: that even when the Supreme Court has spoken, powerful agencies can find ways to ignore the Constitution. For MMJ BioPharma Cultivation, this is more than a legal fight-it is a battle for fairness, integrity, and the rule of law.

And for the rest of us, it is a reminder that no agency is above accountability, and no American-corporate or individual-should be railroaded by the very institutions sworn to uphold justice.

MMJ is represented by attorney Megan Sheehan.

CONTACT:
Madison Hisey
[email protected]
203-231-8583

SOURCE: MMJ International Holdings

View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire

D.Lopez--AT