Opinion ID: 785067
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Procedures for Scheduling a Controlled Substance

Text: 17 Since under the Chevron standard we conclude that Congress did not regulate non-psychoactive hemp in Schedule I, we must consider whether the DEA followed the appropriate procedures to schedule it as a controlled substance. The DEA concedes that it did not use the following procedures spelled out in the CSA to adopt the Final Rules. Under 21 U.S.C. § 811(a): 18 the Attorney General may by rule — 19 (1) add to such a schedule or transfer between such schedules any drug or other substance if he — 20 (A) finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and 21 (B) makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of section 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed. 22 . . . 23 Rules of the Attorney General under this subsection shall be made on the record after opportunity for a hearing pursuant to the rulemaking procedures prescribed by subchapter II of chapter 5 of Title 5[5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.]. 24 21 U.S.C. § 811(a) calls for formal rulemaking procedures, as described in 5 U.S.C. §§ 556 and 557. Formal rulemaking requires hearings on the record, and section 557(c) invites parties to submit proposed findings and oppose the stated bases of tentative agency decisions, and requires the agency to issue formal rulings on each finding, conclusion, or exception on the record. We will not reproduce the entirety of the Administrative Procedure Act here; it suffices to say that the DEA did not and does not claim to have followed formal rulemaking procedures. 25 In addition, the DEA did not comply with § 811(a)(1)(B), because the findings required by § 812(b) were not made. Section 812(b) states: 26 (b) Placement on schedules; findings required. Except where control is required by United States obligations under an international treaty, convention, or protocol, in effect on October 27, 1970, and except in the case of an immediate precursor, a drug or other substance may not be placed in any schedule unless the findings required for such schedule are made with respect to such drug or other substance. 27 The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows: 28
29 (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. 30 (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. 31 (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision. 32 The DEA does not purport to have met the requirements for placement of non-psychoactive hemp on Schedule I, and indeed disclaims any need to show that non-psychoactive hemp has a high potential for abuse. Instead, the DEA argues that naturally-occurring THC in those parts of the hemp plant excluded from the definition of marijuana have always been included under the listing for THC, and that it had no previous need to clarify this because the intentional use of such products in foodstuffs is relatively new within the United States. The DEA urges that under Chevron its definition of the meaning of THC in the CSA should be given deference. However, no deference is required because this issue is resolved at Chevron step one: the statutory language on point unambiguously precludes an interpretation of the THC definition that includes non-psychoactive hemp.