## Facts

- NORML and other organizations filed a petition under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. § 811, requesting that the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) initiate rulemaking to change marijuana’s status.
- The petition sought either (1) removal of marijuana from CSA control, or (2) transfer from Schedule I to Schedule V.
- The BNDD Director refused to accept the petition for filing, asserting he lacked authority to institute the requested proceeding.
- The Director relied on 21 U.S.C. § 811(d) and the United States’ obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, concluding treaty commitments foreclosed consideration of descheduling or moving marijuana to Schedule V.
- NORML sought judicial review in the D.C. Circuit of the agency’s refusal to accept and process the petition.

## Issues

1. Whether 21 U.S.C. § 811(d) and treaty obligations under the Single Convention categorically deprived the Attorney General (and delegates) of authority to entertain a rulemaking petition to deschedule or reschedule marijuana.
2. Whether the agency could lawfully refuse to accept the petition for filing based solely on its treaty-based interpretation, without conducting the CSA’s rulemaking procedures.
3. Whether administrative proceedings were required to develop a record and reasoned explanation regarding the interaction between the CSA’s scheduling scheme and treaty obligations.

## Decision

- The court held the Director could not refuse to accept the petition on a categorical claim that treaty obligations eliminated agency authority to initiate proceedings.
- The court granted review to the extent of remanding the matter to the agency for further proceedings under the CSA’s framework.
- The court did not decide marijuana’s proper scheduling classification and left the merits for agency consideration in subsequent proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute provides a mechanism for rulemaking petitions, an agency may not bypass that mechanism by a conclusory assertion that it lacks authority, absent clear statutory withdrawal of jurisdiction.
- Treaty obligations referenced in domestic statutes must be addressed through reasoned agency decisionmaking within the governing statutory procedures, including record development and explanation.
- Questions about how treaty commitments affect domestic regulatory options may require administrative consideration rather than summary dismissal at the filing stage.
- Courts may require an agency to take jurisdiction and proceed under statutory procedures before reviewing the merits of a final scheduling determination.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit required the agency to process NORML’s marijuana descheduling/rescheduling petition through the CSA’s rulemaking procedures and rejected the agency’s attempt to refuse filing based solely on an asserted treaty bar, remanding for further administrative proceedings.


Nat'l Org. for Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) v. Ingersoll, 497 F.2d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1974)