Case: 20-71433, 09/29/2020, ID: 11841669, DktEntry: 18, Page 1 of 117
`
`No. 20-71433
`
`In the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Ninth Circuit
`
`SUZANNE SISLEY, M.D.; SCOTTSDALE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, LLC; BATTLEFIELD
`FOUNDATION, DBA FIELD TO HEALED; LORENZO SULLIVAN; KENDRICK SPEAGLE;
`GARY HESS,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY
`GENERAL; TIMOTHY SHEA, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG ENFORCEMENT
`ADMINISTRATION,
`
`Respondents
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Matthew C. Zorn
`Shane Pennington
`YETTER COLEMAN LLP
`811 Main Street, Suite 4100
`Houston, Texas 77002
`(713) 632-8000
`(713) 632-8002
`mzorn@yettercoleman.com
`spennington@yettercoleman.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONERS SUZANNE SISLEY, M.D.; SCOTTSDALE RESEARCH
`INSTITUTE, LLC; BATTLEFIELD FOUNDATION D/B/A FIELD TO HEALED; LORENZO
`SULLIVAN; KENDRIC SPEAGLE; AND GARY HESS
`
`
`

`

`Case: 20-71433, 09/29/2020, ID: 11841669, DktEntry: 18, Page 2 of 117
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................. 5
`INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................14
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ..................................................................................17
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ............................................18
`PERTINENT STATUTES AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ....................................18
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................................18
`Background of the Act. ...............................................................................18
`A. Drug scheduling ................................................................................20
`B. Marijuana in 1970 .............................................................................22
`Responsibilities and duties under the Act ....................................23
`C.
`Prior rescheduling litigation ......................................................................26
`The 1972 NORML petition ..............................................................26
`Chevron and the five-factor test .....................................................27
`Recent failed efforts to reschedule marijuana..............................31
`C.
`III. Factual background ....................................................................................35
`A. Dr. Suzanne Sisley and SRI .............................................................35
`The NIDA monopoly and the regulatory Catch-22 .....................37
`The rise and stall of the Growers Program ...................................40
`
`II.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case: 20-71433, 09/29/2020, ID: 11841669, DktEntry: 18, Page 3 of 117
`
`IV. The 2020 Petition .......................................................................................44
`STANDARD OF REVIEW .............................................................................................45
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................................................................45
`ARGUMENT ...............................................................................................................47
`The 2020 Determination is contrary to law. ..........................................47
`
`I.
`
`A.
`
`The 2020 Determination rests on an unlawful
`interpretation of § 812(b)(1)(B). .....................................................47
`
`1.
`
`DEA’s interpretation bears no connection to the
`statutory text. ..........................................................................47
`
`2. Widespread acceptance by the States—the
`traditional gatekeepers of the medical profession
`under Our Federalism—forecloses placement in
`Schedule I. ...............................................................................56
`Other textual clues refute DEA’s interpretation. ...............58
`DEA’s interpretation invites absurd results. ......................66
`4.
`Chevron does not apply. ..................................................................67
`
`3.
`
`Even if Chevron applied, it could not save DEA’s
`interpretation of § 812(b)(1)(B). .....................................................69
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`II.
`
`Section 811(d)(1)’s double delegation of legislative Power Is
`unconstitutional. .........................................................................................76
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Section 811(d)(1) violates the private non-delegation
`doctrine. .............................................................................................76
`
`The delegation to the Attorney General is
`unconstitutional. ...............................................................................79
`The double delegation violates separation of powers. ................81
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case: 20-71433, 09/29/2020, ID: 11841669, DktEntry: 18, Page 4 of 117
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................81
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ..............................................................................83
`INSERT FORM 8 - CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE .........................................................84
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .........................................................................................85
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case: 20-71433, 09/29/2020, ID: 11841669, DktEntry: 18, Page 5 of 117
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`CASES
`A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States,
`295 U.S. 495 (1935) ............................................................................................ 77
`Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA,
`930 F.2d 936 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ................................................................ 29, 67, 70
`Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA,
`15 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 31
`Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Cent. Lincoln Peoples’ Util. Dist.,
`467 U.S. 380 (1984) ............................................................................................ 54
`Americans for Safe Access v. DEA,
`706 F.3d 438 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 32
`Bare v. Barr,
`2020 WL 5541393 (9th Cir. Sept. 16, 2020) ...................................................... 66
`BFP v. Resolution Tust. Corp.,
`511 U.S. 531 (1994) ...................................................................................... 56, 74
`Bond v. U.S.,
`572 U.S. 844 (2014) ............................................................................................ 48
`Bonds v. Tandy,
`457 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 17
`Bostock v. Clayton Cty., Georgia,
`140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) .................................................................................. 53, 60
`Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm.,
`531 U.S. 341 (2001) ............................................................................................ 50
`Carter v. Carter Coal Co.,
`298 U.S. 238 (1936) ...................................................................................... 76, 77
`Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
`467 U.S. 837 (1984) ................................................................................ 27, 45, 70
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case: 20-71433, 09/29/2020, ID: 11841669, DktEntry: 18, Page 6 of 117
`
`Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass’n,
`557 U.S. 519 (2009) ............................................................................................ 69
`Dep’t of Transp. v. Ass’n of Am. R.R.,
`575 U.S. 43 (2015) .................................................................................. 77, 78, 79
`Esquivel-Quintana v. Lynch,
`810 F.3d 1019 (6th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 69
`Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd.,
`537 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 81
`Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd.,
`561 U.S. 477 (2010) ...................................................................................... 79, 81
`Gettman v. DEA,
`290 F.3d 430 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 32
`Gonzales v. Oregon,
`546 U.S. 243 (2006) .....................................................................................passim
`Gonzales v. Raich,
`545 U.S. 1 (2005) .........................................................................................passim
`Grinspoon v. DEA,
`828 F.2d 881 (1st Cir. 1987) ........................................................................passim
`Gundy v. United States,
`139 S. Ct. 2116 (2019) ............................................................................ 79, 80, 81
`Gustafson v. Alloyd Co.,
`513 U.S. 561 (1995) ............................................................................................ 63
`Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc.,
`137 S. Ct. 1718 (2017) ........................................................................................ 49
`Inland Empire Pub. Lands Council v. Glickman,
`88 F.3d 697 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................ 70
`Judulang v. Holder,
`565 U.S. 42 (2011) .............................................................................................. 72
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case: 20-71433, 09/29/2020, ID: 11841669, DktEntry: 18, Page 7 of 117
`
`Left Coast Ventures Inc. v. Bill’s Nursery Inc.,
`2019 WL 6683518 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 6, 2019) ................................................. 35
`Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. and Research v. United States,
`562 U.S. 44 (2011) .............................................................................................. 70
`Medellin v. Texas,
`552 U.S. 491 (2008) ............................................................................................ 80
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr,
`518 U.S. 470 (1996) ............................................................................................ 52
`Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`463 U.S. 29 (1983) .............................................................................................. 71
`Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA,
`464 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................ 78
`Nat’l Org. for Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) v. Ingersoll,
`497 F.2d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1974) ................................................................ 20, 21, 26
`Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Bos. & Maine Corp.,
`503 U.S. 407 (1992) ............................................................................................ 63
`Nebraska v. Parker,
`136 S. Ct. 1072 (2016) ........................................................................................ 48
`NORML v. DEA,
`1980 U.S. App. Lexis 13099 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 16, 1980) ..................................... 27
`NORML v. DEA,
`559 F.2d 735 (D.C. Cir. 1977) ................................................................ 20, 26, 27
`PDK Labs. Inc. v. DEA,
`362 F.3d 786 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 17
`Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`552 U.S. 312 (2008) ............................................................................................ 51
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) ........................................................................................ 45
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case: 20-71433, 09/29/2020, ID: 11841669, DktEntry: 18, Page 8 of 117
`
`Sessions v. Dimaya,
`138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) .................................................................................. 48, 79
`Smith v. Goguen,
`415 U.S. 566 (1974) ............................................................................................ 79
`Sturgeon v. Frost,
`136 S. Ct. 1061 (2016) ........................................................................................ 50
`Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins,
`310 U.S. 381 (1940) ............................................................................................ 78
`Touby v. United States,
`500 U.S. 160 (1991) ............................................................................................ 80
`United States v. McIntosh,
`833 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 34
`United States v. Mead Corp.,
`533 U.S. 218 (2001) ............................................................................................ 68
`Valenzuela Gallardo v. Barr,
`968 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................ 69
`Washington v. Barr,
`925 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2019) ............................................................................... 33
`Younger v. Harris,
`401 U.S. 37 (1971) .............................................................................................. 58
`STATUTES
`5 U.S.C. § 706 .......................................................................................................... 45
`21 U.S.C. § 301 ........................................................................................................ 20
`21 U.S.C. § 331 ........................................................................................................ 21
`21 U.S.C. § 396 .................................................................................................. 62, 74
`21 U.S.C. § 801 ........................................................................................................ 19
`21 U.S.C. § 802(16) ................................................................................................. 72
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case: 20-71433, 09/29/2020, ID: 11841669, DktEntry: 18, Page 9 of 117
`
`21 U.S.C. § 811(a) ............................................................................................. 25, 82
`21 U.S.C. § 811(b) ................................................................................................... 25
`21 U.S.C. § 811(d) ............................................................................................passim
`21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(1)........................................................................................passim
`21 U.S.C. § 812 ........................................................................................................ 58
`21 U.S.C. § 812(a) ................................................................................................... 59
`21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1)(B) ..................................................................................passim
`21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1)(C) ......................................................................................... 63
`21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(2)(B) ......................................................................................... 64
`21 U.S.C. § 812(c) ................................................................................................... 21
`21 U.S.C. § 823 ........................................................................................................ 66
`21 U.S.C. § 823(d) ................................................................................................... 39
`21 U.S.C. § 824(a) ................................................................................................... 57
`21 U.S.C. § 826 ........................................................................................................ 59
`21 U.S.C. § 829(c) ................................................................................................... 57
`21 U.S.C. § 903 ........................................................................................................ 51
`Pub. L. No. 91-513 §§ 601, 602, 84 Stat. 1236 (Oct. 27, 1970) .................. 22, 23, 72
`Pub. L. No. 115-271 (Oct. 24, 2018) ....................................................................... 75
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`21 C.F.R. § 166.2(e) ................................................................................................. 66
`116 Cong. Rec. 36,882 (1970) ................................................................................. 53
`116 Cong. Rec. 973 (1970) ...................................................................................... 19
`40 Fed. Reg. 44,164 (1975) ..................................................................................... 26
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case: 20-71433, 09/29/2020, ID: 11841669, DktEntry: 18, Page 10 of 117
`
`44 Fed. Reg. 36,123 (June 20, 1979) ....................................................................... 27
`47 Fed. Reg. 28,141 (June 29, 1982) ....................................................................... 49
`53 Fed. Reg. 5,156 (Feb. 22, 1988) ......................................................................... 29
`54 Fed. Reg. 53,767 (Dec. 29, 1989) ....................................................................... 29
`57 Fed. Reg. 10,499 (Mar. 26, 1992) ................................................................passim
`59 Fed. Reg. 59,820 (Nov. 18, 1994)....................................................................... 62
`66 Fed. Reg. 20,038 (Apr. 18, 2001) ....................................................................... 32
`74 Fed. Reg. 2,101 (Jan. 14, 2009) .......................................................................... 39
`76 Fed. Reg. 40,552 (July 8, 2011) .......................................................................... 32
`81 Fed. Reg. 53,688 (Aug. 11, 2016)................................................................passim
`81 Fed. Reg. 53,767 (Aug. 12, 2016)....................................................................... 76
`81 Fed. Reg. 53,846 (Aug. 12, 2016)....................................................................... 40
`84 Fed. Reg. 44,920 (Aug. 27, 2019)....................................................................... 43
`85 Fed. Reg. 16,292 (Mar. 23, 2020) ....................................................................... 43
`12 FDA Drug Bull. 4 (Apr. 1982)............................................................................ 50
`A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal
`Texts (2012) .................................................................................................. 47, 64
`Alcoholism and Narcotics, Hearings, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., on Inquiry
`into the Problem of Alcoholism and Narcotics (Part 5) (1970) .................... 24, 25
`B. Erickson, “Cannabis research stalled by federal inaction,” 98
`Chem. & Eng. News 25 (June 29, 2020) ............................................................ 37
`Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations for
`Fiscal Year 2019 Hearings, Subcommittee of the Committee of
`Appropriations (Apr. 25, 2018) .......................................................................... 41
`D. Musto & P. Korsmeyer, The Quest for Drug Control, Politics and
`Federal Policy in a Period of Increasing Substance Abuse (2002) ................... 21
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case: 20-71433, 09/29/2020, ID: 11841669, DktEntry: 18, Page 11 of 117
`
`Drug abuse control amendments—1970, Hearings, 91st Cong., 2d
`Sess., on H.R. 11701 and H.R. 13743 (Part 1) (1970) ....................................... 55
`Drug abuse control amendments—1970, Hearings, 91st Cong., 2d
`Sess., on H.R. 11701 and H.R. 13743 (Part 2) (1970) ....................................... 54
`FDA, Good Reprint Practices (Jan. 2009), http://
`www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucml25126.htm .................... 50
`Federal Drug Abuse and Drug Dependence Prevention, Treatment,
`and Rehabilitation Act of 1970, Hearings, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., on
`S. 3562 (Part 2) (1970) ....................................................................................... 22
`Federal Drug Abuse and Drug Dependence Prevention, Treatment,
`and Rehabilitation Act of 1970, Hearings, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., on
`S. 3562 (Part 2) (1970) ....................................................................................... 54
`G. Posner, Pharma: Greed, Lies, and the Poisoning of America (2020) .......... 21, 55
`H.R. Rep. No. 91–1444, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) reprinted in 1970
`U.S.C.C.A.N. 4566 ................................................................................. 24, 25, 66
`H. Res. 17 (1969) ..................................................................................................... 22
`Hearing Before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 116th Cong.,
`1st Sess. (Feb. 8, 2019) ....................................................................................... 41
`In the matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition, Docket No. 86-22
`(DOJ Sept. 6, 1988) ............................................................................................ 29
`L. Chafee and C. Gregoire, Rulemaking Petition to Reclassify
`Cannabis for Medical Use from a Schedule I Controlled Substance
`to a Schedule II (Nov. 30, 2011) ......................................................................... 32
`L. Sacco et al., The Marijuana Policy Gap and the Path Forward,
`Congressional Research Service, at 12-14 (Mar. 10, 2017) ............................... 34
`L. Sacco, The Schedule I Status of Marijuana Congressional
`Research Service, p.1-2 (Sept. 11, 2020) available at
`https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11204 ................................... 34
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case: 20-71433, 09/29/2020, ID: 11841669, DktEntry: 18, Page 12 of 117
`
`Licensing Marijuana Cultivation in Compliance with the Single
`Convention on Narcotic Drugs
`42 Op. O.L.C. -- (June 6, 2018) .......................................................................... 42
`Ltr. to Azar, Carroll, Dhillon (Dec. 11, 2019) ......................................................... 43
`Ltr. to Sessions (Aug. 31, 2018) .............................................................................. 40
`Ltr. to Sessions, Dhillon (Sept. 28, 2018) ................................................................ 40
`Ltr. to Sessions (July 25, 2018) ............................................................................... 41
`Ltr. to Shea (Aug. 18, 2020) .............................................................................. 43, 44
`M. Sonnenreich to J. Dean, Memorandum re: Proposed Changes in S.
`3246, the Controlled Dangerous Substances Act (DOJ Apr. 17,
`1970) ................................................................................................................... 60
`Mandamus Petition, In re: Scottsdale Res. Inst., LLC, 19-1120 (D.C.
`Cir. June 11, 2019 ............................................................................................... 42
`Michael Sonnenreich et al., Handbook of Federal Narcotic and
`Dangerous Drug Laws, Dep’t of Justice (Jan. 1969) .......................................... 19
`National Conference of State Legislatures, State Medical Marijuana
`Laws & Table 1 (Mar. 10, 2020), available at
`https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-medical-marijuana-
`laws.aspx ............................................................................................................. 55
`Order, In re: Scottsdale Res. Inst., LLC, 19-1120 (D.C. Cir. July 29,
`2019) ................................................................................................................... 42
`Press Release, Drug Enforcement Administration (Aug. 26, 2019) ........................ 42
`R. Bogomolny, M. Sonnenreich & A. Roccograndi, A Handbook on
`the 1970 Federal Drug Act: Shifting the Perspective (1975) ......................passim
`R. Eisenberg, D. Leiderman, Cannabis for Medical Use: FDA and
`DEA Regulation in the Hall of Mirrors, 74 Food & Drug L.J. 246
`(2019) .................................................................................................................. 75
`Response, In re: Scottsdale Research Inst., LLC, 19-1120 (D.C. Cir.
`July 29, 2019)...................................................................................................... 43
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case: 20-71433, 09/29/2020, ID: 11841669, DktEntry: 18, Page 13 of 117
`
`S. Rep. No. 813, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969) ............................................. 24, 25, 60
`Schwabe et al., Research Grade Marijuana Supplied by the National
`Institute on Drug Abuse is Genetically Divergent from
`Commercially Available Cannabis, Pre-Print .................................................... 38
`Settlement Agmt., Scottsdale Research Inst., LLC v. DEA, 2:20-cv-
`00605-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz. Apr. 28, 2020) .......................................................... 41
`Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary Unabridged (2d ed.)
`(1970) .................................................................................................................. 49
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case: 20-71433, 09/29/2020, ID: 11841669, DktEntry: 18, Page 14 of 117
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Thirty-one year old Justice Department lawyer Michael Sonnenreich
`
`faced a daunting task. Between 1914 and 1969, Congress had enacted some
`
`fifty pieces of drug legislation. Littered about the U.S. Code, these disparate
`
`laws made enforcement difficult. Sonnenreich’s job was to boil this confusing
`
`patchwork down to a single, uniform framework to assist law enforcement
`
`and better protect the public from the dangers of drug abuse.
`
`His innovation was the scheduling system. Rather than address drugs
`
`or classes of drugs in standalone laws, the scheduling system provided a
`
`single legislative scheme for all controlled substances. Drugs were sorted into
`
`schedules based on medical-utility and abuse-potential criteria. Restrictions
`
`and penalties corresponded to schedules, not particular drugs or drug
`
`classes. The schedules could then be administratively adjusted as
`
`circumstances and knowledge changed, eliminating the need for constant
`
`legislative amendments.
`
`These schedules—the Controlled Substances Act’s (“CSA” or “Act”)
`
`cardinal feature—were supposed to carry out its promise: providing a flexible
`
`federal drug-control framework capable of adapting to changing times and
`
`thus eliminating the confusing patchwork of federal laws that preceded it.
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case: 20-71433, 09/29/2020, ID: 11841669, DktEntry: 18, Page 15 of 117
`
`Fifty years later, however, the Act has failed to deliver on that promise.
`
`More than two-thirds of States have enacted medical-marijuana laws, but
`
`marijuana remains in Schedule I. This growing schism between state and
`
`federal law has brought back the patchwork of incoherent law the Act was
`
`supposed to fix.
`
`It did not have to be this way. The story of how the flexible scheduling
`
`framework got turned on its head is long and winding. But at its core, it sings
`
`a familiar refrain. Decades after enactment, to achieve a policy end, the Drug
`
`Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) rewrote the statutory text, contrary to
`
`its plain meaning and the intent of Congress. But under Chevron, courts
`
`deferred.
`
`In the twenty-five years since, DEA has brushed aside every petition to
`
`reschedule marijuana no matter the evidence by relying on its now twenty-
`
`five-year-old “five-part test” for “currently accepted medial use.” For
`
`example, in 2011, the Governors of Rhode Island and Washington submitted
`
`a petition arguing marijuana’s classification was “fundamentally wrong.”
`
`Applying the five-part test, DEA denied the petition in 2016 (“2016 Denial”).
`
`It also concluded that U.S. treaty obligations independently required keeping
`
`marijuana in Schedules I or II.
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case: 20-71433, 09/29/2020, ID: 11841669, DktEntry: 18, Page 16 of 117
`
`Stephen Zyskiewicz’s one-page, handwritten petition (the “2020
`
`Petition”) suffered the same fate. Zyskiewicz makes one simple, unassailable
`
`point: “the current situation of cannabis in Schedule I [is] completely
`
`untenable” because “[h]alf the states allow for medical use.” 1.ER.1. He’s
`
`right. But in April 2020, DEA said otherwise and denied the 2020 Petition
`
`(the “2020 Denial”). 1.ER.2. According to DEA, evidence gathered in
`
`response to a different petition submitted nearly a decade ago proves that,
`
`per its five-part test, marijuana today has no “currently accepted medical use
`
`in treatment in the United States.” 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1)(B).
`
`This final decision vests this Court with jurisdiction to right a ship that
`
`veered off course long ago. Petitioners urge this Court to grant the Petition
`
`for Review and hold the 2020 Denial unlawful for two reasons:
`
`First, it rests on an interpretation of § 812(b)(1)(B) that cannot be
`
`squared with the plain text of the statute. The traditional tools of statutory
`
`construction demonstrate that marijuana’s widespread acceptance by the
`
`States renders DEA’s finding of “no currently accepted medical use in
`
`treatment in the United States” untenable.
`
`Second, § 811(d)(1), which forms the basis for DEA’s independent
`
`determination that marijuana must be placed in Schedules I or II,
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Case: 20-71433, 09/29/2020, ID: 11841669, DktEntry: 18, Page 17 of 117
`
`unconstitutionally delegates legislative power twice: first to a non-
`
`governmental entity and then to the Attorney General.
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`
`“[A]ny person aggrieved” by a final DEA determination may seek
`
`review of the decision in the United States Court of Appeals in the circuit in
`
`which his principal place of business is located within thirty days after notice
`
`of the decision. Id. § 877. On May 21, 2020, Petitioners timely petitioned for
`
`review of the 2020 Denial.
`
`Each Petitioner suffers an injury from the 2020 Denial and seeks to
`
`vindicate interests within the statute’s zone-of-interests. See Bonds v.
`
`Tandy, 457 F.3d 409, 412 (5th Cir. 2006); PDK Labs. Inc. v. DEA, 362 F.3d
`
`786, 793 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Petitioners Sisley and Scottsdale Research
`
`Institute (“SRI”) are licensed to research marijuana, but marijuana’s
`
`Schedule I classification has hampered their research. See 6.ER.1408, Sisley
`
`Decl. Petitioners Sullivan, Speagle, and Hess are veterans with injuries
`
`stemming from marijuana’s continued Schedule I placement. See 6.ER.1424,
`
`Sullivan Decl.; 6.ER.1422, Speagle Decl.; 6.ER.1419, Hess Decl. But for
`
`DEA’s application of its unlawful interpretation of § 812(b)(1)(B), DEA could
`
`not have denied the 2020 Petition.
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`Case: 20-71433, 09/29/2020, ID: 11841669, DktEntry: 18, Page 18 of 117
`
`Jurisdictional issues are addressed in more detail at Dkt. 14 at 1-2, 8,
`
`11-14.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
`
`1.
`
`Is the interpretation of § 812(b)(1)(B) underlying the 2020 Denial,
`
`which concludes that marijuana has “no currently accepted medical
`
`use in treatment in the United States” despite its widespread
`
`acceptance by the traditional gatekeepers of the practice of medicine in
`
`Our Federalism—the States—arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise
`
`contrary to law? Yes.
`
`2.
`
`Is § 811(d)(1)’s double delegation of legislative Power to a non-
`
`governmental entity and the Attorney General constitutional? No.
`
`PERTINENT STATUTES AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
`
`Pertinent statutes and constitutional provisions appear in the
`
`addendum.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`I.
`
`Background of the Act.
`
`Congress enacted the CSA in 1970 to combat “drug abuse” and control
`
`“the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances.” Gonzales v.
`
`Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 250 (2006). To that end, it made two competing
`
`findings. First, many drugs “have a useful and legitimate medical purpose
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`Case: 20-71433, 09/29/2020, ID: 11841669, DktEntry: 18, Page 19 of 117
`
`and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American
`
`people.” 21 U.S.C. § 801(1). Second, the “illegal importation, manufacture,
`
`distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have
`
`a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the
`
`American people.” Id. § 801(2).
`
`Congress did not legislate against a blank slate. Until the Act, the
`
`federal government regulated drugs through a “patchwork” of federal laws.
`
`5.ER.1044-47, M. Sonnenreich et al., Handbook of Federal Narcotic and
`
`Dangerous Drug Laws, xiii to xvi (DOJ Jan. 1969); 2.ER.1