Craker v. Drug Enforcement Administration
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7485
1st Cir.2013Background
- Craker seeks DEA registration to cultivate marijuana for medical research; NCNPR at Univ. of Mississippi has long held registration and a government contract through NIDA/NIH under HHS; the DEA denied Craker’s 2001 application; an ALJ recommended grant in 2007, but the Administrator denied in 2009; Craker challenged the denial in this petition for review; the court addresses jurisdiction and the CSA/823(a)(1) interpretation and findings on diversion, supply, and competition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Craker’s petition for review was ripe/final for jurisdiction | Craker argues final Craker II; reconsideration pending; petition prematurely filed | DEA argues pendency of reconsideration renders petition incurably premature | Jurisdiction exists; petition timely and reviewable on merits |
| Whether 823(a)(1) unambiguously limits supply or allows competition analysis | Statute unambiguously governs diversion; no supply/competition analysis | Statute permits considering supply and competition to promote public interest | Chevron Step One inconclusive; Step Two reasonable interpretation favors DEA |
| Whether the Administrator properly found adequate supply and adequate competition | Craker shows inadequate supply and competition | DEA found sufficient supply and competition; cost factors cited | Findings supported; supply adequate; competition not inadequate |
| Whether the Single Convention bars registration and renders outcome governed by treaty | Registration would violate treaty obligations | Treaty controls if applicable; registration denial supported by treaty | Court does not resolve treaty issue; denial upheld under 823(a) as analyzed |
Key Cases Cited
- Noramco of Del., Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 375 F.3d 1148 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (agency could analyze supply/competition but not compelled by statute)
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (S. Ct. 1984) (deference when statute ambiguous; agency interpretation reviewed for reasonableness)
- Noramco, 375 F.3d 1148, - (-) (cited for agency interpretation on supply/competition analysis)
- River Street Donuts, LLC v. Napolitano, 558 F.3d 111 (1st Cir. 2009) (agency change in precedent must be rational and explained)
- Gorman v. NTSB, 558 F.3d 580 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (premature petitions and finality in review contexts)
- TeleSTAR, Inc. v. FCC, 888 F.2d 132 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (incurably premature review rule discussed)
- Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Const. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (SUP. CT. 1983) (stay as refusal to exercise jurisdiction; jurisdiction timing)