—second criteria for Schedule I classification (whether the drug has "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States"), the DEA applies a five-part test: "(1)[t] he drug's chemistry must be known and reproducible;(2) there must be adequate safety studies;(3) there must be adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy;(4) the drug must be accepted …

—define "currently accepted medical use" to require, inter alia, "adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy."

A drug is placed in Schedule I if (1) it "has a high potential for abuse," (2) it has "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States," and (3) "[t] here is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug... under medical supervision." 21 USC § 812 (b)(1)(1988)(emphasis added).

T] he Administrator' s findings are supported by substantial evidence,” including the “testimony of numerous experts that marijuana' s medicinal value has never been proven in sound scientific studies

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has reviewed the petition to reschedule marijuana on five separate occasions over the course of 30 years, ultimately upholding the Administrator' s final order.

Second, the plaintiff "must show that he was adversely affected by a lack of publication or that he would have been able to pursue an alternative course of conduct had the information been published."

—that raises questions about the continuing validity of DC Circuit precedent in Appointments Clause cases. Appellant's Br. 18

“Schedule I drugs may be obtained 3 and used lawfully only by doctors who submit a detailed research protocol for approval by the Food and Drug Administration and who agree to abide by strict recordkeeping and storage rules.”

However, reconsideration is appropriate if the court:(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence;(2) has committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) is presented with an intervening change in controlling law.

The petitioners pointed to the long history of DEA anti-marijuana prejudice, as evidenced by the court's need to remand on four prior occasions and the DEA Ad ญ ministrator's refusal to follow previous recommendations for the rescheduling of mari ญ juana, as well as comments by the Administrator minimizing the value of statements by persons claiming to benefit from …