STEVEN KADONSKY VS. STEVE C. LEE (Division of Consumer Affairs), A-3324-14T4

Background

Appellant Steven Kadonsky (incarcerated) petitioned the Acting Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to a lower schedule under New Jersey's Controlled Dangerous Substances Act (CDSA), arguing CUMMA established an "accepted medical use."
The Acting Director denied the petition, reasoning N.J.S.A. 24:21-3(c) requires the Director to "similarly control" substances as listed under federal schedules unless he objects within a prescribed procedure and timeframe; the Director found no authority to reschedule marijuana independently of federal law.
Amicus (L.B. on behalf of G.B.) described concrete harms from Schedule I classification: G.B., a registered medical marijuana patient with severe epilepsy, cannot receive doses from school nurses because marijuana is Schedule I, forcing half-day attendance and interfering with education.
The majority found a tension between N.J.S.A. 24:21-3(a) (Director may add/delete/reschedule substances considering scientific factors) and subsection (c) (mandatory conformity with federal scheduling), and held the Director erred in concluding he lacked authority to reclassify marijuana absent federal change.
The court remanded to the Director to reconsider classification consistent with the opinion, without ordering reclassification; the decision emphasized administrative-review standards and left factual determinations (e.g., abuse potential) to the Director.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Director was required to reschedule marijuana off Schedule I because CUMMA recognizes medical use	Kadonsky: CUMMA's recognition of therapeutic use means marijuana no longer meets Schedule I criteria ("no accepted medical use"), so Director must reschedule	Director: N.J.S.A. 24:21-3(c) mandates conformity with federal schedules; Director lacked authority to reschedule absent federal change	Majority: Director erred to conclude he lacked authority to reclassify; remand for Director to consider rescheduling (not a mandate to reschedule)
Proper scope of Director's authority under N.J.S.A. 24:21-3(a) vs (c)	Kadonsky: (a)'s rescission/rescheduling power and Tate dicta allow Director to act based on scientific developments	Director: (c)'s "shall similarly control" and timing/objection process restrict departures from federal schedule	Majority: (a) grants authority to reschedule; (c) does not conclusively bar Director review; remand appropriate
Whether the 30-day objection window in (c) forecloses later Director action	Kadonsky: periodic updating and scientific developments permit later objection/reconsideration	Director/Dissent: Objection in (c) is time-limited to 30 days after federal action; Director may not revisit established federal schedules later	Majority: 30-day event will recur by operation of periodic updating; Director may reconsider in appropriate proceedings
Whether federal law/preemption prohibits state reclassification differing from federal schedule	Director/Dissent: CSA and Supremacy Clause preempt contradictory state scheduling; removing marijuana from Schedule I would conflict with federal scheme	Kadonsky: CUMMA demonstrates state intent to recognize medical uses without invalidating state scheduling authority	Majority: Did not decide preemption; remanded for Director to consider rescheduling — noted preemption/federal constraints are relevant but not resolved here

Key Cases Cited

State v. Tate, 102 N.J. 64 (N.J. 1986) (observed Commissioner/Director authority to reschedule with regard to scientific developments; discussed medicinal-use tension)
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2005) (upheld federal power under the Commerce Clause to prohibit intrastate medical marijuana; noted credible medical evidence could call federal scheduling into question)
In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182 (N.J. 2011) (sets standard and limited scope for appellate review of administrative agency decisions)