Touby v. United States

Background

In this case, Daniel and Lyrissa Touby were charged after law enforcement found a home lab producing a new drug called Euphoria, which the Attorney General had placed temporarily on the most restrictive drug list to respond to designer drugs. Congress created an expedited temporary scheduling process to let the Government act quickly, shortening some procedures and giving the Attorney General power to act without the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ prior approval.

Reasoning

The Court considered two questions: whether Congress unlawfully gave away its lawmaking power in the temporary-scheduling provision and whether the Attorney General could delegate that scheduling power to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The Court said the statute provides a clear standard — temporary scheduling is allowed when it is “necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety” and requires consideration of specified factors, notice, and HHS input. The Court also explained that the statute postpones, but does not bar, judicial review and that defendants may raise challenges as a defense in criminal cases. Finally, the Court found a separate provision that expressly permits the Attorney General to delegate functions to Justice Department officers, so delegation to the DEA was lawful.

Real world impact

The ruling means federal officials can use temporary listings to react quickly to new dangerous drugs and pursue criminal cases based on those listings. At the same time, people charged under a temporary listing can challenge that scheduling in their defense, and permanent scheduling and judicial review follow later if the Government proceeds.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Blackmun, concurred and stressed that the ability to challenge a temporary scheduling during prosecution is essential and noted due process concerns about combining prosecutorial and regulatory power.