A coalition of pro-cannabis medical professionals has dropped its lawsuit against the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), clearing one of the many hurdles preventing the process from progressing.
As the DEA’s long-awaited hearing on cannabis rescheduling remains on hold indefinitely, Doctors for Drug Policy Reform (D4DPR), a coalition of over 400 physicians advocating for evidence-based cannabis policy, has confirmed the withdrawal of its appeal.
Just a day ahead of the deadline for D4DPR to submit its ‘reply brief’ for the its legal case ahead of a scheduled hearing on May 12, 2024, the coalition filed a ‘motion to dismiss the petition’.
In an explanation of its withdrawal published on its website yesterday (April 21, 2025), the coalition said that it had achieved its ‘principal objective’ of bringing the DEA’s alleged bias into the spotlight, and remained concerned that its legal case could set the process back further.
However, should the DEA choose to not to agree with the recommendations of the HHS to reschedule cannabis, it has reserved the right to ‘re-urge’ its arguments at a later juncture.
The case
In February 2025, D4DPR launched a legal challenge against the administration, submitting a 56-page brief to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on Monday, February 17, calling for the selection process to be redone.
D4DPR’s legal challenge alleges that the DEA acted arbitrarily when it limited the number of participants at the hearing rejecting 138 out of 163 applicants.
Furthermore, they have called the process ‘opaque,’ arguing that no explanation was provided as to why certain participants were selected over others and why the majority of participants were opposed to rescheduling.
Last month, Business of Cannabis reported that new evidence was published as part of this case that pointed to a confirmation of bias within the DEA.
Not only was the selection process entirely opaque, but the DEA issued 12 so-called ‘cure letters’ to participants in the rescheduling process, requesting additional information to demonstrate their eligibility as a ‘person adversely affected or aggrieved by the proposed rule,’ as required under federal law.
Copies of these letters, included in court filings, revealed a significant bias in their distribution. Of the 12 recipients, nine were sent to entities that were strongly opposed to rescheduling, indicating a clear skew toward prohibitionist perspectives.
Only one letter was sent to a known supporter of rescheduling, the University of California, San Diego’s Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR)—a government entity. However, after CMCR provided the requested information and confirmed its support for the rule, the DEA ultimately rejected its participation without explanation.
