## Facts

- NORML petitioned the federal drug enforcement agency to remove marijuana from control under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) or, alternatively, transfer it from Schedule I to Schedule V.
- The agency initially refused to accept the petition, asserting that international treaty obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961) barred any change and permitted rescheduling without using CSA § 201 procedures.
- After an earlier judicial remand requiring consideration on the merits, the agency reconsidered and concluded the treaty did not necessarily prevent rescheduling or partial removal of certain portions of the marijuana plant from CSA control.
- In deciding whether marijuana should remain in Schedule I, the agency did not initiate the formal CSA § 201 process seeking a medical and scientific evaluation and scheduling recommendation from the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW).
- Instead, the agency relied primarily on a brief HEW letter stating, without explanation or supporting findings, that marijuana had “no accepted medical use” in the United States.
- Based on that letter, the agency effectively denied the requested rescheduling and retained marijuana in Schedule I.
- NORML sought judicial review of the agency’s final action.

## Issues

1. Whether the agency could treat the Single Convention as dictating or pre-determining marijuana’s scheduling outcome under the CSA.
2. Whether the agency complied with CSA § 201 by relying on an informal, conclusory HEW letter instead of obtaining the statute-required medical and scientific evaluation and recommendations.
3. Whether the agency’s record and reasoning were sufficient to support retention of marijuana in Schedule I and permit meaningful judicial review.

## Decision

- The court vacated the agency’s decision and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court rejected the agency’s attempt to use the Single Convention as a basis to bypass or short-circuit the CSA’s domestic scheduling procedures and standards.
- The court held the agency failed to comply with CSA § 201 by substituting a terse, unexplained HEW letter for the required medical and scientific evaluation and recommendations.
- The court found the record too thin and the agency’s explanation too conclusory to support the Schedule I determination under the statutory criteria.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute prescribes specific procedures for agency rulemaking, the agency must follow those procedures before making or maintaining a scheduling determination.
- Under CSA § 201, the Attorney General (or delegee) must request a medical and scientific evaluation and scheduling recommendation from HEW, and medical/scientific recommendations are binding within their domain.
- An agency action must rest on an adequate evidentiary record and a reasoned explanation sufficient to permit judicial review; conclusory interagency communications cannot substitute for statutorily required findings and analysis.
- Treaty obligations relevant to drug control must be implemented through the domestic statutory framework and do not authorize an agency to disregard mandatory statutory safeguards.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the agency’s refusal to reschedule marijuana because the agency relied on an unsupported HEW conclusion rather than the full evaluation and findings required by CSA § 201, and because it could not treat treaty obligations as displacing the CSA’s procedures or the need for a reviewable, reasoned record.


Nat'l Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Drug Enf't Admin., 559 F.2d 735 (D.C. Cir. 1977)