Touby v. United States

Background

A married couple, Daniel and Lyrissa Touby, were arrested after agents found a working drug lab where they were making "Euphoria," a new drug temporarily listed as a schedule I controlled substance. Congress created a temporary scheduling procedure in 1984 so the Government could act faster against new "designer" drugs that appear before the regular, slower scheduling process is complete. The couple challenged their indictment, arguing that the temporary rule unconstitutionally gives lawmaking power to the Attorney General and that the Attorney General improperly gave that power to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Lower courts denied the challenge, and the case reached the Court, which affirmed the convictions.

Reasoning

The main question was whether the temporary-scheduling statute unlawfully delegated Congress’s lawmaking power and whether the Attorney General could lawfully subdelegate the temporary scheduling authority to the DEA. The Court found the statute sets an "intelligible principle": temporary scheduling must be "necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety" and requires consideration of specific factors like patterns of abuse, scope and duration of abuse, and public health risk. The Court also noted procedural steps the Attorney General must take and that the permanent-scheduling criteria apply too. The Court held that the Attorney General may delegate functions under a separate provision of the Act, so delegation to the DEA was permitted. The Court rejected the claim that the temporary rule’s bar on immediate appellate review made the statute unconstitutional, explaining that review is still possible during criminal prosecutions and through the permanent-scheduling process.

Real world impact

The decision keeps in place a faster tool for the Government to classify new dangerous drugs and to pursue criminal cases while the longer permanent process proceeds. Temporary orders last up to a year (plus six months if permanent steps begin), and defendants can challenge scheduling as a defense in prosecutions. The ruling makes it easier for federal law enforcement to respond quickly to new drug threats while preserving later judicial review.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Blackmun, concurred. He emphasized that the ability of a defendant to challenge a temporary scheduling order during criminal prosecution is essential and noted due process concerns about combining prosecutorial and regulatory roles, though no due process claim was pressed here.