Rescheduling expert makes case for why Chevron ruling was ‘good thing’ for cannabis

While some attorneys in recent days have espoused that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling overturning the Chevron precedent could provide fodder for cannabis foes to derail federal marijuana rescheduling, one of the most prominent rescheduling experts in the country on Tuesday emailed out a lengthy essay on why he thinks the opposite is actually true.

Houston-based Matt Zorn, a partner at Yetter Coleman LP, wrote to his Substack subscribers that “overturning Chevron was a good thing for rescheduling,” and emphasized directly to Green Market Report that the ruling “changes nothing” regarding the current process underway to switch cannabis to Schedule III from Schedule I.

Rather, Zorn argued that the new ruling undercuts some of the previous excuses used by the Drug Enforcement Administration to reject pleas for cannabis rescheduling.

Which means, Zorn wrote, fears that the Chevron ruling will be fatal to federal marijuana rescheduling are tantamount to a “nothingburger.”

Zorn penned the piece in response to a Green Market Report story from Tuesday that quoted attorney Josh Schiller as predicting that the Chevron case could well lead to rescheduling being “canceled,” because it could provide legal ammunition to cannabis opponents who are likely to file court challenges to the reclassification.

Hogwash, Zorn wrote, adding that that such analysis is not “fully baked” and “ought not to be given much deference.”

In a 1991 case, Zorn pointed out, the DEA relied on an outdated definition of “currently accepted medical use” as part of a standard to evaluate cannabis and other drugs, something the Chevron ruling overturned last Friday.

“Put simply, Chevron stitched together DEA’s five-part test that resulted in the denial of all rescheduling petitions,” Zorn wrote. “But it doesn’t stitch together the current (Department of Health and Human Services) test endorsed by (Office of Legislative Counsel).”

Rather, he argued, the Controlled Substances Act is already specific enough in the rescheduling process that the Chevron ruling really won’t have a substantive impact on the science-mandated legal support that’s already baked into the steps.

“All in all, Chevron’s demise was an unquestionably positive sign for rescheduling back when DEA used its five-part test to reject rescheduling petitions,” Zorn wrote. “Now, however, HHS used a new test. That test follows from the plain meaning of the statutory text. HHS applied that test according to delegation in the CSA that has it making findings/determinations on medical and scientific matters.”