Arizona Tribune - DEA Tribunal System Collapses: What MMJ BioPharma's Lawsuit Means for the Marijuana Rescheduling

WASHINGTON, DC, AL / ACCESS Newswire / October 7, 2025 / The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)'s seven-year obstruction of MMJ BioPharma Cultivation, Inc. has escalated from a regulatory standoff into a landmark constitutional victory for the company-and a legal crisis for the DEA.

In September 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) formally conceded a key constitutional issue long raised by MMJ: that the multiple layers of removal restrictions protecting Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) under 5 U.S.C. § 7521are unconstitutional. The DOJ confirmed it will no longer defend these provisions, admitting they violate the separation of powers and Article II of the U.S. Constitution by unlawfully shielding ALJs from presidential oversight.

This stunning reversal follows recent Supreme Court decisions in Axon v. FTC and Jarkesy v. SEC, which held that agencies had illegally insulated their in-house judicial systems-a practice MMJ has challenged since first seeking a DEA license to cultivate pharmaceutical grade cannabis for its FDA approved clinical trials targeting Huntington's disease and Multiple Sclerosis.

"MMJ was among the first to expose that the DEA's administrative courts were operating outside the Constitution," said Duane Boise, President & CEO of MMJ BioPharma Cultivation. "Now that DOJ has conceded the system is invalid, every agency that used ALJs without proper accountability is on notice."

Ethical Oversight Under Scrutiny

The constitutional collapse of the DEA's administrative court system has also raised questions about ethical oversight within the agency's legal division.

Court filings show that DEA attorney Aarathi Deshmukh Haig continued to advocate for judgment through the agency's internal tribunal system even as the Supreme Court's Axon and Jarkesy rulings - and now the DOJ itself - confirmed such in-house proceedings violated Article II separation-of-powers principles.

Public records from the State of New Jersey Board of Bar Examiners further complicate the picture. In an official letter dated February 14, 2023, the Board confirmed that while Ms. Haig "is not suspended from practice or disbarred," she was "not eligible to receive a Certificate of Good Standing" for several reasons, including:

1. Failure to make mandatory annual payments to the New Jersey Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (Rule 1:28-2);

2. Failure to comply with Continuing Legal Education requirements (Rule 1:42-1); and

3. Failure to maintain good standing with the Interest on Lawyers' Trust Account (IOLTA) program.

Observers argue that these administrative deficiencies-combined with her continued reliance on an unconstitutional tribunal-reflect a broader culture of indifference to professional accountability within the DEA's legal division.

"When a federal agency's own attorneys disregard constitutional warnings while facing their own compliance lapses, it calls into question not only their judgment but the integrity of the process itself," Boise said.

From Cannabis Delay to Constitutional Reform

What began as a seven-year regulatory delay has evolved into a transformative fight for due process and constitutional order.

MMJ's lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court, argues that the DEA's internal adjudication process subjected its FDA-compliant research to biased, politically driven decisions by non-removable administrative judges. The DOJ's recent admission now validates that claim, converting MMJ's dispute into a landmark constitutional challenge that could compel a massive restructuring of the federal regulatory state.

The implications reach far beyond cannabis. Legal scholars warn that the DOJ's reversal could upend decades of agency precedent in fields ranging from finance (SEC) and trade (FTC) to energy, healthcare, and pharmaceuticals. Thousands of prior administrative rulings may now face scrutiny or reopening under the new constitutional framework.

The Road Ahead: Accountability Under Trump

MMJ's prolonged struggle has already exposed the DEA's disregard for the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, which requires the agency to approve research applications within 60 days. With the constitutional "shield" now removed, the issue has shifted from why the DEA failed to act, to whether its entire process was lawful to begin with.

Under President Trump's administration, which has prioritized agency reform and deregulation, MMJ's case has become a symbol of the new accountability era-one that demands transparency, rule of law, and science-based decision-making.

"The Supreme Court gave us the constitutional roadmap, and the DOJ just confirmed it," Boise said. "Now it's time for the courts to ensure that science, law, and liberty are never again subordinated to bureaucratic self-interest."

A Precedent for Every Regulated Industry

The outcome of MMJ BioPharma Cultivation's case will not only determine the future of pharmaceutical cannabis research-it will set a powerful precedent for federal accountability across all regulatory sectors. The ruling could make it far more difficult for agencies to hide behind insulated internal tribunals to delay, deny, or distort legitimate scientific progress.

About MMJ BioPharma Cultivation

MMJ BioPharma Cultivation, Inc., a subsidiary of MMJ International Holdings, is developing standardized, pharmaceutical grade cannabinoid formulations for FDA-regulated clinical trials in Huntington's disease and Multiple Sclerosis. The company holds Orphan Drug Designations, multiple IND filings, and maintains GMP-compliant partnerships with international company's for clinical manufacturing and distribution.

MMJ is represented by attorney Megan Sheehan.

CONTACT:
Madison Hisey
[email protected]
203-231-85832

SOURCE: MMJ International Holdings

View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire

A.Anderson--AT