The U.S. Department of Justice has renewed its push to dismiss a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Texas attorney Matthew Zorn, who seeks access to communications between Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) officials and anti-legalization advocates regarding a proposal to reclassify marijuana under federal law.

In a motion to dismiss filed Friday in D.C. federal court, the DOJ contended that Zorn’s lawsuit is unripe because he has not exhausted administrative remedies and lacks standing under Article III of the Constitution.

"Plaintiff has not suffered a concrete and particularized, actual or imminent injury in fact," the government’s motion states. It further argues that Zorn’s role as an attorney in related administrative proceedings does not grant him personal standing to assert that federal agencies violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Government Defends DEA's Handling of Alleged Communications

The DOJ also maintains that Zorn’s claims under the APA are not ready for judicial review, asserting that the DEA’s alleged failure to disclose ex parte communications does not constitute a final agency action.

"An agency cannot put an ex parte communication on the record if it does not know of its existence or contents," the DOJ stated. Additionally, the motion argues that Zorn's pending administrative appeal further underscores that no final agency decision has been made, making the claims premature.

The legal battle follows a DEA tribunal’s recent decision to halt hearings on the U.S. attorney general’s proposal to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III—a move that would ease federal restrictions on cannabis. The suspension was granted to allow a subset of pro-rescheduling parties, including Zorn, to pursue an interlocutory appeal with the DEA administrator over concerns that the DEA is internally opposed to reclassification, despite publicly supporting the change.

Allegations of Undisclosed DEA Contact With Anti-Legalization Group

At the heart of Zorn’s lawsuit are statements made by Kevin Sabet, the president and CEO of Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), a leading anti-legalization nonprofit participating in the rescheduling hearings.

Sabet publicly claimed to have insider knowledge that the DEA had not approved the rescheduling proposal before it was made public. In response, Zorn filed his original FOIA lawsuit in December, seeking to uncover any communications between DEA personnel and SAM.

In an amended complaint filed in January, Zorn dismissed the DEA’s claims that it was unaware of any such correspondence as "misplaced." He pointed to DEA attorneys’ prehearing statements before the agency’s tribunal, where they denied improper contact between SAM and the DEA’s counsel of record but remained silent on whether other DEA officials had engaged in such communications.

According to Zorn, this response suggests that someone in the DEA Chief Counsel’s Office likely investigated the issue and identified those involved in ex parte discussions.

"DEA's FOIA Office could feasibly (and easily) become aware of the identities of DEA employees engaged in ex parte contacts by simply asking the attorneys that filed DEA's submission in the rescheduling proceeding who also work in DEA Chief Counsel's Office," Zorn wrote in his complaint.

Both DEA officials and SAM representatives have denied any improper ex parte communications.

Zorn Pushes for Government Transparency

Speaking generally about the case, Zorn told Law360:

"The public deserves a transparent rulemaking process. That’s all I’m after."

The DEA has not responded to requests for comment.

Legal Representation and Next Steps

Zorn is representing himself in the lawsuit. With the DOJ seeking dismissal, the court’s ruling on the motion will determine whether the case proceeds or is thrown out on procedural grounds.

As the legal battle unfolds, Zorn’s FOIA lawsuit could shed light on the DEA’s internal stance on marijuana rescheduling and whether outside influence played a role in the agency’s handling of the reform process.