Latest news with #ALJs
Associated Press
01-05-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
DEA Unconstitutional Marijuana Hearing - MMJ to File Emergency Injunction and Suit for Irreparable Harm
'We are not just challenging DEA policy, we are defending the Constitution said Duane Boise, CEO of MMJ BioPharma Cultivation. The DEA cannot sidestep Supreme Court precedent and force us into a hearing. The agency is running a closed loop of power, Boise added, they investigate, prosecute, judge and override all in-house. That's not justice, that's a rigged game.' WASHINGTON, DC / ACCESS Newswire / May 1, 2025 / MMJ BioPharma Cultivation announced today that it will file for an emergency motion for injunctive relief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island following a controversial ruling by a DEA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to vacate a previously granted stay, thereby green lighting a hearing before a DEA constitutionally flawed tribunal. The company's forthcoming lawsuit will seek to block the DEA's administrative hearing process, which MMJ contends violates the Supreme Court's ruling in Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, and represents irreparable harm to its constitutional rights. Axon and the Constitutional Crisis The Axon decision, handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023, established that federal courts may hear structural constitutional challenges to administrative agencies without requiring parties to exhaust agency proceedings first. MMJ argues that the DEA's internal administrative process-led by ALJs who are unconstitutionally insulated from presidential removal-defies this ruling. 'We are not just challenging policy; we are defending the Constitution,' said Duane Boise, CEO of MMJ BioPharma Cultivation. 'The DEA cannot sidestep Supreme Court precedent and force us into a hearing that, by their own partial admission, is unconstitutional.' From Delay to Damage MMJ has been seeking DEA approval since 2018 to manufacture pharmaceutical-grade cannabis for FDA clinical trials aimed at treating Huntington's Disease and Multiple Sclerosis. Despite: ...MMJ has waited more than 2,300 days, well beyond the 60-day review period mandated by the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act (MCREA). Now, with the DEA insisting on proceeding with a hearing before an ALJ system MMJ contends is structurally unconstitutional, the company is seeking judicial intervention to prevent what it sees as an 'illegal and biased process.' Alleged Irreparable Harm The emergency injunction will argue that forcing MMJ to participate in this proceeding now would cause: 'This is a direct threat to the right of every American business to a fair process under the law,' Boise added. 'We will not submit to an unconstitutional tribunal.' What's Next MMJ's legal team plans to file the emergency motion and accompanying complaint in the coming days. The action seeks: MMJ's leadership emphasized that this fight is not just about one company-but about accountability at the highest levels of government. 'We are going to federal court to say enough is enough,' said Boise. 'It's time the DEA follows the law-not rewrites it.' MMJ is represented by attorney Megan Sheehan. CONTACT: Madison Hisey [email protected] 203-231-8583 SOURCE: MMJ International Holdings press release
Associated Press
10-04-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
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
Yahoo
30-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
DEA Forces Marijuana Pharma Drug Industry Offshore: A Symbol of DEA Systemic Obstruction Against Trump Administration Directives
"The DEA's marijuana approach is stuck in an outdated 'war on drugs' mentality," said Duane Boise CEO of MMJ International Holdings. "While lawmakers push for medical progress, the DEA's red tape is suffocating innovation." DEA officials, including Matt Strait and Thomas Prevoznik, have been accused of imposing unnecessary hurdles, such as slow-walking API Bulk Manufacturing registrations, and imposing opaque approval processes while patients continue to suffer. WASHINGTON, DC / / March 30, 2025 / As the Trump administration pushes to reshore pharmaceutical manufacturing through aggressive tariffs and trade policies, a less visible but equally critical challenge persists: the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) stringent regulations. Critics argue that the agency's bureaucratic delays and restrictive oversight are not only hindering medical research but also driving pharmaceutical companies overseas , undermining domestic innovation and economic goals. The MMJ Marijuana Case: A Symbol of DEA Systemic Obstruction At the heart of this debate is a high-stakes legal battle between MMJ International Holdings and the DEA . The company, which specializes in cannabis-based treatments for conditions like multiple sclerosis and Huntington's disease , alleges that the DEA has unlawfully delayed approvals for cultivating proprietary marijuana strains needed for research and drug development. These delays, MMJ claims, have delayed FDA clinical trials for its flagship drug, MMJ-002, and reflect a broader bias against cannabis-derived medicines. The lawsuit also challenges the constitutionality of protections for Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), who oversee DEA cases. MMJ argues that these protections insulate ALJs from accountability, allowing inefficiency and bias to fester. The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently backed this view, declaring ALJ removal safeguards unconstitutiona l - a move that will force the DEA to operate with greater transparency and responsiveness. Regulatory Delays vs. Legislative Progress The DEA's actions stand in stark contrast to recent legislative efforts aimed at advancing medical research. Laws like the Right to Try Act and the Medical Marijuana Research Expansion Act were designed to streamline access to experimental treatments and expand cannabis studies. However, DEA officials, including Matt Strait and Thomas Prevoznik , have been accused of imposing unnecessary hurdles, such as slow-walking cultivation licenses and imposing opaque approval processes. "The DEA's approach is stuck in an outdated 'war on drugs' mentality," said Duane Boise CEO of MMJ International Holdings. "While lawmakers push for medical progress, the agency's red tape is suffocating innovation." DEA Driving Pharma Offshore The DEA's sluggish processes are exacerbating a growing trend: pharmaceutical companies relocating operations to countries with friendlier regulatory climates. Canada, Germany, and Israel-nations with clearer pathways for cannabis research-have emerged as hubs for drug development, luring American firms deterred by U.S. bureaucracy. "Every month of delay costs millions and risks losing talent overseas," noted a CEO of a biotech startup. "The DEA's inefficiency is a competitive disadvantage for the U.S." Broader Implications for DEA Accountability MMJ's case could set a precedent for reforming how federal agencies operate. If the court sides with MMJ, agencies like the DEA will face increased executive oversight, potentially dismantling systemic inefficiencies. This shift could revitalize sectors reliant on timely approvals, including pharmaceutical manufacturing, and biotechnology. The Cannabis Conundrum Critics argue that the DEA's resistance to cannabis research is particularly shortsighted. With 38 states legalizing medical marijuana and global markets for cannabis-based therapies projected to reach $55 billion by 2027, the U.S. risks ceding leadership in a burgeoning industry. "The DEA is clinging to stigma over science," said Duane Boise an advocate for Pharmaceutical marijuana. "Patients are paying the price." A Crossroads for U.S. Pharma and Marijuana Drug Development The outcome of MMJ's lawsuit could determine whether the U.S. retains its edge in pharmaceutical innovation. A win for MMJ International Holdings will catalyze regulatory reforms, aligning the DEA with legislative and public sentiment. Conversely, a loss could accelerate the offshoring of research and production, leaving American patients dependent on foreign-developed treatments. As the Trump administration champions "America First" trade policies, the DEA's role as an inadvertent roadblock highlights a stark contradiction . Without regulatory modernization, tariffs alone may fail to reverse the pharmaceutical exodus-or unlock the potential of groundbreaking therapies. The Bottom Line: The DEA's regulatory inertia is more than a bureaucratic hiccup; it's a critical threat to U.S. medical innovation and economic competitiveness. As legal and political battles unfold, the agency's ability to adapt may well decide the future of American pharmaceutical leadership. For updates on this evolving story and its impact on cannabis research and federal accountability, follow our ongoing coverage. MMJ is represented by attorney Megan Sheehan . CONTACT: Madison Hisey mhisey@ 203-231-8583 SOURCE: MMJ International Holdings View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire
