Arizona Tribune - The DEA's Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing Has a Bigger Problem Than Marijuana

WASHINGTON, D.C. / ACCESS Newswire / June 26, 2026 / On June 29, DEA will begin hearing testimony that could influence one of the biggest changes in federal marijuana policy in decades. The hearing will be conducted by a DEA Administrative Law Judge.

Here's what makes that unusual.

Earlier this year, the Department of Justice-the very agency defending DEA's actions-told a federal court that the legal protections preventing DEA Administrative Law Judges from being removed are unconstitutional under Article II of the Constitution. In other words, DOJ acknowledged that the legal framework governing these judges does not comply with the Constitution and said it would no longer defend that law in court.

Think about that for a moment.

Imagine a building inspector tells you the foundation of your house is defective but says, "Go ahead and move your family in anyway. We'll sort it out later."

Most people would stop and ask whether the house should be occupied before the foundation is fixed.

That is essentially the question hanging over DEA's hearing.

The constitutional issue doesn't automatically invalidate every ruling an Administrative Law Judge makes. Courts still examine whether someone was actually harmed by the constitutional defect. But the government's concession means this is no longer just an argument made by parties challenging DEA.

It is the government's own position.

Now consider what that judge may be asked to decide.

DEA's scientific case relies heavily on a 96-page report written by DEA pharmacologist Dr. Luli R. Akinfiresoye. DEA has repeatedly relied on that report as reflecting its current scientific knowledge regarding marijuana.

But DEA chose not to call Dr. Akinfiresoye as a witness.

When another participant asked to subpoena her, DEA directed the request through the Touhy process-a separate administrative procedure governing testimony by federal employees. Because of the timing, that process created uncertainty about whether she could realistically testify before the hearing concludes.

Here's an easier way to think about it.

Imagine a teacher grades the most important exam of the year using a secret answer key.

When students ask to question the person who wrote the answer key, they're told to fill out additional paperwork and wait for approval-while the exam continues.

Whether the paperwork is technically proper isn't the point.

The point is that the questions may never get answered before the final grades are issued.

That is why these two issues matter together.

First, the hearing is being conducted under an Administrative Law Judge structure that DOJ itself says has a constitutional problem.

Second, that same hearing may determine whether the government's own scientific expert can be meaningfully questioned about the report forming the backbone of DEA's scientific case.

Neither fact alone proves the process is unfair.

Together, however, they raise an obvious question:

Can the public have confidence in a hearing when both the decision-maker's legal status and the opportunity to test the government's evidence are under active dispute?

MMJ International Holdings has consistently maintained that this case is not about opposing cannabinoid research or opposing marijuana itself.

It is about process.

Science advances by asking questions.

Courts protect fairness by allowing those questions to be asked.

If the government's scientific conclusions are sound, they should withstand scrutiny.

If the hearing process is constitutionally sound, it should withstand scrutiny too.

Public confidence doesn't come from asking people to trust the process.

It comes from building a process that earns that trust.

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

SOURCE: MMJ International Holdings

View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire

H.Romero--AT