Here's my thoughts for your Chevron piece. Chevron was applied to cannabis in 1994, a case brought by organizations (Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA) because Currently Accepted Medical Use (CAMU) is ambiguous in the statute, 21 USC 812. ACT v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 1994). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision creating a new CAMU test was rejected by the DEA Administrator in that case. The court cited Chevron to defer to the DEA Admin. In contrast, today it's not some private organization asking for rescheduling. The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed this petition for a new CAMU test and sits above the DEA Administrator. Chevron does not seem relevant to me. Who is going to challenge the final agency ruling? Will a federal judge just substitute it's own opinion of what CAMU means for the DOJ and Health and Human Services (HHS)? From the sound of your comments above, it sounds like you don't think reversing Chevron is much of a big deal, and I don't think it will make any difference here.
Here's my thoughts for your Chevron piece. Chevron was applied to cannabis in 1994, a case brought by organizations (Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA) because Currently Accepted Medical Use (CAMU) is ambiguous in the statute, 21 USC 812. ACT v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 1994). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision creating a new CAMU test was rejected by the DEA Administrator in that case. The court cited Chevron to defer to the DEA Admin. In contrast, today it's not some private organization asking for rescheduling. The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed this petition for a new CAMU test and sits above the DEA Administrator. Chevron does not seem relevant to me. Who is going to challenge the final agency ruling? Will a federal judge just substitute it's own opinion of what CAMU means for the DOJ and Health and Human Services (HHS)? From the sound of your comments above, it sounds like you don't think reversing Chevron is much of a big deal, and I don't think it will make any difference here.