How the DEA Is Trying to Railroad MMJ Biopharma Marijuana Cultivation in Defiance of Supreme Court Axon Ruling
'MMJ BioPharma Cultivation is engaged not only in a fight for justice but for the integrity of our legal system. As we stand against the DEA's disregard for Supreme Court directives, we are not merely defending our rights; we are upholding the principle that the DEA should not be above the law, especially not one that regulates medical progress. This isn't just our battle-it's a stand for every American whose life and liberties depend on the fair application of justice.' - Duane Boise, CEO of MMJ BioPharma Cultivation
WASHINGTON, DC / ACCESS Newswire / April 10, 2025 / The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is currently embroiled in a high-stakes legal battle with MMJ BioPharma Cultivation, a biopharmaceutical company developing marijuana-derived treatments for Huntington's Disease and Multiple Sclerosis. But beneath the surface of this dispute lies a broader constitutional crisis: the DEA appears to be ignoring a landmark Supreme Court decision in Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, effectively attempting to railroad MMJ through an administrative process that the Court has already flagged as structurally flawed.
At the center of MMJ's case is the argument that DEA administrative law judges (ALJs) are unconstitutionally insulated from removal, violating separation-of-powers principles. In Axon, the Supreme Court affirmed that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear structural constitutional challenges to agency proceedings before those proceedings are completed. The ruling was clear: litigants need not exhaust internal agency processes when the legitimacy of the agency's very structure is in question.
Despite this, the DEA has continued to press forward with administrative proceedings against MMJ, seemingly disregarding the precedent set by Axon. Even more egregiously, DEA officials initially contested MMJ's constitutional claims, only to later concede that the DEA's ALJ removal protections are, in fact, unconstitutional. That concession should have been a watershed moment-an acknowledgment that the proceedings were tainted from the outset. Instead, the DEA has doubled down, arguing that MMJ must still demonstrate 'irreparable harm' to invalidate the flawed process.
This tactic is a transparent end-run around Axon. The DEA is effectively saying, 'Yes, the structure is unconstitutional, but unless you can prove it harmed you personally, we get to continue anyway.' This ignores the Supreme Court's clear directive: structural defects don't require a showing of harm to warrant judicial intervention. The very purpose of Axon was to prevent exactly this type of procedural abuse.
Further compounding the agency's credibility crisis is the ethical misconduct of its lead attorney in the case, Aarathi Haig. Haig has been found ineligible to practice law in New Jersey due to failure to meet Continuing Legal Education (CLE) requirements and other obligations-a violation of 28 U.S.C. § 530B, which mandates that federal attorneys comply with state bar rules. How can the DEA, which demands strict compliance from private parties, justify allowing an ineligible attorney to prosecute high-stakes regulatory actions?
MMJ's lawsuit also highlights statutory violations by the DEA. Under the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act (MCREA), the DEA is required to respond to applications within 60 days. MMJ's application has languished for over 7 years, with no final action-a glaring breach of federal law and a disservice to patients waiting for life-changing treatments.
In a rare move that signals judicial recognition of MMJ's arguments, DEA Administrative Law Judge Teresa Wallbaum stayed the agency's own proceedings, citing the constitutional issues as 'novel' and worthy of federal court review. MMJ has since filed a Motion for Reconsideration, bolstered by the DEA's concession on the ALJ removal issue. The motion could revive the case in federal court and force the DEA to finally reckon with its legal obligations.
Meanwhile, public and political pressure continues to mount. Lawmakers, legal scholars, and patient advocates have all called for greater accountability and reform. The idea that an agency can violate statutory deadlines, prosecute with ineligible counsel, and ignore Supreme Court rulings while holding others to exacting standards is not just hypocritical-it's dangerous.
If allowed to stand, the DEA's actions will set a chilling precedent: that even when the Supreme Court has spoken, powerful agencies can find ways to ignore the Constitution. For MMJ BioPharma Cultivation, this is more than a legal fight-it is a battle for fairness, integrity, and the rule of law.
And for the rest of us, it is a reminder that no agency is above accountability, and no American-corporate or individual-should be railroaded by the very institutions sworn to uphold justice.
MMJ is represented by .
Madison Hisey
203-231-8583
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
17 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Supreme Court makes it easier to claim ‘reverse discrimination' in employment, in a case from Ohio
WASHINGTON — A unanimous Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. The justices' decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court that federal civil rights law draws no distinction between members of majority and minority groups. 'By establishing the same protections for every 'individual' — without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group — Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,' Jackson wrote. The court ruled in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years. Though he joined Jackson's opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a separate opinion that some of the country's 'largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups.' Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, cited a brief filed by America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, to assert that 'American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans.' Two years ago, the court's conservative majority outlawed consideration of race in university admissions. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has ordered an end to DEI policies in the federal government and has sought to end government support for DEI programs elsewhere. Some of the new administration's anti-DEI initiatives have been temporarily blocked in federal court. Jackson's opinion makes no mention of DEI. Instead, she focused on Ames' contention that she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames. The 6th circuit is among the courts that had required an additional requirement for people like Ames, showing 'background circumstances' that might include that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group. The appeals court noted that Ames didn't provide any such circumstances. But Jackson wrote that 'this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute.'
Washington Post
17 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Top US universities raced to become global campuses. Under Trump, it's becoming a liability
WASHINGTON — Three decades ago, foreign students at Harvard University accounted for just 11% of the total student body. Today, they account for 26%. Like other prestigious U.S. universities, Harvard for years has been cashing in on its global cache to recruit the world's best students. Now, the booming international enrollment has left colleges vulnerable to a new line of attack from President Donald Trump. The president has begun to use his control over the nation's borders as leverage in his fight to reshape American higher education. Trump's latest salvo against Harvard uses a broad federal law to bar foreign students from entering the country to attend the campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts. His order applies only to Harvard, but it poses a threat to other universities his administration has targeted as hotbeds of liberalism in need of reform. It's rattling campuses under federal scrutiny, including Columbia University , where foreign students make up 40% of the campus. As the Trump administration stepped up reviews of new student visas last week, a group of Columbia faculty and alumni raised concerns over Trump's gatekeeping powers. 'Columbia's exposure to this 'stroke of pen' risk is uniquely high,' the Stand Columbia Society wrote in a newsletter. People from other countries made up about 6% of all college students in the U.S. in 2023, but they accounted for 27% of the eight schools in the Ivy League, according to an Associated Press analysis of Education Department data. Columbia's 40% was the largest concentration, followed by Harvard and Cornell at about 25%. Brown University had the smallest share at 20%. Other highly selective private universities have seen similar trends, including at Northeastern University and New York University, which each saw foreign enrollment double between 2013 and 2023. Growth at public universities has been more muted. Even at the 50 most selective public schools, foreign students account for about 11% of the student body. America's universities have been widening their doors to foreign students for decades, but the numbers shot upward starting around 2008, as Chinese students came to U.S. universities in rising numbers. It was part of a 'gold rush' in higher education, said William Brustein, who orchestrated the international expansion of several universities. 'Whether you were private or you were public, you had to be out in front in terms of being able to claim you were the most global university,' said Brustein, who led efforts at Ohio State University and West Virginia University. The race was driven in part by economics, he said. Foreign students typically aren't eligible for financial aid, and at some schools they pay two or three times the tuition rate charged to U.S. students. Colleges also were eyeing global rankings that gave schools a boost if they recruited larger numbers of foreign students and scholars, he said. But the expansion wasn't equal across all types of colleges — public universities often face pressure from state lawmakers to limit foreign enrollment and keep more seats open for state residents. Private universities don't face that pressure, and many aggressively recruited foreign students as their numbers of U.S. students stayed flat. The college-going rate among American students has changed little for decades, and some have been turned off on college by the rising costs and student debt loads. Proponents of international exchange say foreign students pour billions of dollars into the U.S. economy, and many go on to support the nation's tech industry and other fields in need of skilled workers. Most international students study the STEM fields of science, technology, engineering and math. In the Ivy League, most international growth has been at the graduate level, while undergraduate numbers have seen more modest increases. Foreign graduate students make up more than half the students at Harvard's government and design schools, along with five of Columbia's schools. The Ivy League has been able to outpace other schools in large part because of its reputation, Brustein said. He recalls trips to China and India, where he spoke with families that could recite where each Ivy League school sat in world rankings. 'That was the golden calf for these families. They really thought, 'If we could just get into these schools, the rest of our lives would be on easy street,'' he said. Last week, Trump said he thought Harvard should cap its foreign students to about 15%. 'We have people who want to go to Harvard and other schools, they can't get in because we have foreign students there,' Trump said at a news conference. The university called Trump's latest action banning entry into the country to attend Harvard 'yet another illegal retaliatory step taken by the Administration in violation of Harvard's First Amendment rights.' In a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's previous attempt to block international students at Harvard, the university said its foreign student population was the result of 'a painstaking, decades-long project' to attract the most qualified international students. Losing access to student visas would immediately harm the school's mission and reputation, it said. 'In our interconnected global economy,' the school said, 'a university that cannot welcome students from all corners of the world is at a competitive disadvantage.' ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Much Savings Middle-Class Retirees Have, According To Most of America
Saving for retirement looks different for everyone, even those with similar incomes and net worths. Be Aware: Try This: To give you a better idea of how much to save and how fellow Americans are positioned for retirement, GOBankingRates surveyed 1,000 working Americans aged 21 and older. Conducted at the end of 2024, the survey covered various topics, including current 401(k) balances and beliefs about what middle-class Americans need to retire comfortably. To understand public beliefs about retirement savings, we asked how much the typical middle-class American has saved by age 65. The responses revealed a wide range of views shaped by age and financial perspectives. Our survey found that younger respondents (ages 21-34) were more likely to believe retirees have less than $50,000 saved, with 25.95% holding this view. This perception remained consistent across other age groups, with 29.47% of those aged 35-44 and 25% of those aged 55-64 also selecting this range. In contrast, fewer respondents expected higher savings: only 13.92% of younger respondents believed retirees had saved between $300,00 and $500,000, and just 3.16% thought retirees surpassed $1 million. These findings express significant uncertainty about retirement readiness. While some respondents may base their views on personal experience, others might lack awareness of expert recommendations, which often suggest saving 10-12 times one's annual income, a benchmark far beyond what most perceive as typical. This disparity reveals to us the need for clearer guidance on what's truly necessary for a financially secure retirement. See More: The current state of Americans' 401(k) balances highlights significant disparities across age groups: Ages 21 to 34: 19.6% have less than $25,000 saved, while 32.91% report balances between $50,001 and $100,000. Only 10.76% have saved $100,01 to $500,000, and none have surpassed $500,000. Ages 35 to 44: Savings improve slightly, with 17.24% having between $100,001 and $500,000. However, 20.69% still have $25,001 to $50,000 saved. Ages 45 to 54: 20.87% have $100,001 to $500,000 saved, but 16.54% still have less than $25,000. Ages 55 to 64: 17.19% have between $100,001 and $500,000, and only 5.79% have over $500,000 saved. Ages 65 and over: 24.68% have balances between $25,001 and $50,000, but 19.48% do not have a 401(k) at all. Nearly 8% claim to have over $500,000 in their 401(k). Younger respondents are, of course, still building their retirement savings, while older groups often fall short of financial benchmarks. Middle-class Americans vary widely in living expenses and goals, making it hard to pinpoint a universal savings target. While experts suggest benchmarks like saving 10-12 times your annual income, these guidelines depend heavily on personal circumstances such as lifestyle and retirement plans. Aligning savings strategies with individual needs is key to closing the gap between goals and reality. The data highlights a pressing need for Americans to increase their savings rates. Here's how individuals can close the gap: Increase contributions gradually: Fidelity recommends saving at least 15% of your before-tax income yearly towards retirement. If this feels daunting, start small and increase contributions annually by 1% until the target rate is reached. Maximize employer matches: For those with employer-sponsored plans, failing to contribute enough to receive the full match is leaving free money on the table. Monitor progress: Regularly reviewing 401(k) balances and adjusting contributions based on goals can help keep savings on track. Seek expert guidance: Consulting a financial advisor can provide personalized strategies to optimize retirement savings. Modest contributions and low balances risk leaving retirees financially vulnerable. These findings highlight the importance of proactive planning and disciplined savings. While this data focuses on 401(k) balances, it's important to note that not all retirement savings are tied to these accounts. Many retirees rely on alternative methods such as IRAs, pensions, annuities or even real estate investments to fund their retirement years. Additionally, those who are already retired may lean on Social Security benefits or personal savings outside of formal retirement plans. The data presented here offers a rough snapshot of where Americans stand with retirement savings, but it's crucial to consider these additional financial options and your situation when assessing financial readiness. By focusing on consistent contributions and setting realistic goals, middle-class workers can work toward a more secure and well-rounded retirement. More From GOBankingRates Here's the Minimum Salary Required To Be Considered Upper Class in 2025 Mark Cuban Says Trump's Executive Order To Lower Medication Costs Has a 'Real Shot' -- Here's Why This article originally appeared on How Much Savings Middle-Class Retirees Have, According To Most of America
