Implications for Cannabis Justice: Could the Supreme Court's Overturning of Chevron Rollback Rescheduling?
In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned Chevron deference, a key legal principle that has guided judicial deference to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes since 1984. This pivotal change in administrative law has far-reaching implications, particularly for the ongoing efforts to reschedule cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). At Last Prisoner Project, we are dedicated to advancing cannabis justice and advocating for the release of those incarcerated for cannabis-related offenses. Here, we explore the potential impacts of this Supreme Court decision on our mission.
Chevron deference dates back to a
1984 Supreme Court case It established a two-step process for courts to follow when reviewing federal agencies' interpretations of the statutes they administer:
1. Step One: Determine whether the statute is ambiguous. If Congress’s intent is clear, that intent must be followed.
2. Step Two: If the statute is ambiguous, the court must decide whether the agency's interpretation is reasonable. If it is, the court defers to the agency’s interpretation.
This framework has granted agencies like the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)significant leeway in interpreting and implementing statutes, including those related to cannabis classification.
The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Chevron deference means that courts are no longer required to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Instead, judges will independently evaluate the reasonableness of these interpretations without the presumption of agency expertise. This change could have lasting implications for cannabis justice and rescheduling with increased judicial scrutiny and a need for more detailed administrative justifications.
Without Chevron deference, any decision by the DEA or HHS to reschedule cannabis could face more rigorous judicial review. Courts will no longer automatically defer to these agencies' expertise, potentially leading to more legal challenges and a higher burden of proof for the agencies. Agencies will need to provide comprehensive and robust justifications for reclassifying cannabis. This means ensuring their decisions align clearly with statutory requirements and can withstand judicial scrutiny. Judges may take a more nuanced approach to rescheduling, possibly distinguishing between different types of cannabis products, leading to a more complex rescheduling landscape.
While it is unclear who may have standing to bring a case against rescheduling such attempts could occur soon. These legal challenges would add uncertainty to the validity and timeline of the rescheduling process.
The increased likelihood of judicial challenges and the potential for inconsistent interpretations may push Congress to clarify or amend the CSA regarding cannabis classification. Legislative action could become a more viable and necessary route to achieve meaningful cannabis policy reform. LPP will continue to encourage the public to
contact their legislators to #DecriminalizeNow via a number of federal bills, including the MORE Act, HOPE Act, and CAOA.
At Last Prisoner Project, we recognize that the road to cannabis justice is fraught with legal and political challenges. The Supreme Court's decision to end Chevron deference introduces new complexities but also new opportunities for advocacy and reform. We will continue to support legal efforts that challenge unjust cannabis laws and advocate for fair judicial review of agency decisions and categorical review of sentences as we urge for release. In the meantime, we encourage the public to continue to engage in the cannabis
rescheduling process by providing public comment.
The overturning of Chevron deference marks a significant shift in administrative law, with profound implications for cannabis rescheduling, but together, we can create a future with true cannabis justice.
