NORML v. DEA, 1980: Reconsideration of Rescheduling Petition

The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Petitioner v. Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of Justice, and U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Respondents

No. 79-1660

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 13099

October 16, 1980, Filed

NOTICE: [*1] UNPUBLISHED DISPOSITION – NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT. SEE LOCAL RULE 11(c).

PRIOR HISTORY: PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION

JUDGES: Before: TAMM, ROBINSON and MIKVA, Circuit Judges

OPINION BY: PER CURIAM

OPINION

JUDGMENT

This cause came on to be heard on a petition for review of an order of the Drug Enforcement Administration, briefs and other pleadings, including a motion for partial remand, were filed by the parties, and the case was called for oral argument. Counsel for the parties were asked to address the Court as to the present status of this case and did so. In view of respondents’ motion for partial remand of this case to the Drug Enforcement Administration, this Court finds, sua sponte, that reconsideration of all the issues in this case would be appropriate. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, by this Court, that this case be remanded in its entirety to the Drug Enforcement Administration. It is

FURTHER ORDERED, that the Drug Enforcement Administration refer all the substances at issue to the Department of Health and Human Resources for that Department’s scientific and medical findings and recommendations on scheduling, [*2] as provided by 21 U.S.C. § 811(b) (1976). These proceedings shall take into account new evidence concerning medical use of the substances at issue, and shall be consistent with both this order and the prior decisions of this Court in National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 182 U.S. App. D.C. 114, 559 F.2d 735 (D.C. Cir. 1977), and National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Ingersoll, 162 U.S. App. D.C. 67, 497 F.2d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1974). We regrettably find it necessary to remind respondents of an agency’s obligation on remand not to “do anything which is contrary to either the letter or spirit of the mandate construed in the light of the opinion of [the] court deciding the case.” City of Cleveland v. Federal Power Commission, 182 U.S. App. D.C. 346, 561 F.2d 344, 346 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (quoting Yablonski v. UMW, 147 U.S. App. D.C. 193, 454 F.2d 1036, 1038 (D.C. Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 906, 31 L. Ed. 2d 816, 92 S. Ct. 1609 (1972).

Per Curiam

For the Court

 

Advertisements

Discussion

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: