# The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (Norml) v. Drug Enforcement Administration, U. S. Department of Justice

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · April 26, 1977 · 559 F.2d 735

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9463997

## Case

- **Full name:** The NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR the REFORM OF MARIJUANA LAWS (NORML), Petitioner, v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** April 26, 1977
- **Citations:** 559 F.2d 735; 182 U.S. App. D.C. 114; 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13676
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Robb
- **Judges:** Wright, Robb, Gesell
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9463997

## Opinion text

ROBB, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that the Controlled Substances Act requires the Attorney General to seek advice from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (H.E.W.) before assigning marijuana to an appropriate schedule.
The Act gives the Attorney General broad discretion in scheduling drugs over which control is required by treaty. Notwithstanding the majority’s assertion to the contrary, the Act does not limit this discretion when more than one schedule would satisfy the country’s treaty commitments. The Act provides that “If control is required by United States obligations under international treaties”, then the Attorney General may control the drugs involved “under the schedule he deems most appropriate . . . without regard to” any recommendations from H.E.W. 21 U.S.C. § 811 (d) (1970) (emphasis added).
I think the statute means what it plainly says; but even if it were so ambiguous as to require resort to its legislative history, that history would not support the majority’s interpretation. The relevant House Report states:
Under subsection (d), where control of a drug or other substance by the United States is required by reason of its obligations under an international treaty, convention, or protocol . . . the bill does not require that the Attorney General seek an evaluation and recommenda *759 tion by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare .
H.R.Rep.No.91-1444, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. pt. 1 at 36, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1970, p. 4603 (1970) (emphasis added).
Thus, neither the statute nor its legislative history supports the majority’s position; both say that when control is required by a treaty the Attorney General need not consult H.E.W. Believing that it is not the function of this court to rewrite a statute I must dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9463997. Public record. Not legal advice.