Touby v. United States

Background

Daniel and Lyrissa Touby were charged with manufacturing the drug known as Euphoria after the DEA temporarily listed it as a Schedule I substance under a fast-track procedure in the Controlled Substances Act. That temporary procedure lets the Attorney General add a drug quickly when an "imminent hazard to the public safety" is found, with fewer notice requirements and a limit on immediate judicial review. The Toubys argued the temporary-scheduling law unconstitutionally gave legislative power to the Attorney General and that the Attorney General had no authority to delegate that power to the DEA.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether Congress had given standards that meaningfully constrain the Attorney General and whether the Attorney General could lawfully delegate the task to the DEA. The Court found the statute includes clear factors to consider (for example, history and scope of abuse and risks to public health) and additional requirements for placing a drug into Schedule I. The Court held these limits satisfy the rule against unlawful delegation. The Court also concluded that a separate statute allows the Attorney General to delegate functions to Department of Justice officers, so the DEA lawfully carried out temporary scheduling.

Real world impact

The practical result is that the Government may use the temporary scheduling process to act quickly against new dangerous drugs, and prosecutions based on those temporary listings can proceed. The Court explained that the temporary-order rule postpones broad pre-enforcement appeals but does not bar defendants from challenging the temporary schedule as a defense in criminal cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Blackmun, emphasized that defendants must be able to challenge a temporary scheduling order during criminal prosecutions and noted due-process concerns about combining prosecutorial and regulatory roles.