The Justice Department is asking a federal court to stop the marijuana opponents’ request to deny it The Trump administration’s cannabis rescheduling proposal advancing among the general lawsuits challenging the reform.

The government’s brief argues drug testing industry association and pharmaceutical company trying to block rescheduling of cannabis “fulfilling pocket interest by keeping all marijuana on schedule I.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia District is handling three separate cases regarding whether cannabis is subject to Schedule I through Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Against moving to the Annex.

A lawsuit is led by a prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and National Drug and Alcohol Screening (NDASA)and they say they are “offended” by the reform. Another comes from a coalition anti-marijuana activists, substance abuse professionals, doctors and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation. He filed a third claim Attorneys General of Indiana, Nebraska and Louisiana— although the latter appeared later withdrew from the suit.

Two of the entities involved in the case — NDASA and the cannabis-based biopharmaceutical corporation MMJ International Holdings — filed a separate motion asking the court to stay the reorganization while the broader challenge is considered.

The DOJ responded to that request on Thursday, arguing that the court should not halt cannabis reform because NDASA and MMJ lack standing to bring the challenge and have not “demonstrated a likelihood of success” in the overall lawsuit.

“Applicants are nowhere near meeting the exacting standard of such exceptional relief.”

The government report says NDASA, which represents drug-testing companies, “only cited general speculation about how the reorganization order might affect the drug-testing industry, rather than specific allegations about how the order affected specific members of the association.”

The group argued that its members would lose revenue due to less employer drug testing for marijuana and the “higher costs” required to “determine whether positive results reflect state-licensed medical use.”

But the DOJ says that’s not the government’s problem.

“In addition, NDASA’s feared future injury would result from customers’ decisions to stop testing marijuana altogether or from its members and their customers’ decisions to increase drug testing costs. Petitioners have not demonstrated that it is “foreseeable,” rather than “speculative,” that third parties will choose to use any illegal testing for marijuana. Increasing costs to drug screeners from continued customer testing would be a continuation of their voluntary billing decisions, not in the reprogramming order.”

The government’s report also states that MMJ has also not set out to pursue its review request, stating that it is “not a current market competitor” and without products that have completed the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) clinical research process.

“Petitioners do not establish an Article III identification: the association does not identify any concrete harm to any of its members, and the pharmaceutical company does not demonstrate a competitor’s position when it has not yet produced a product authorized to compete on the market. Nor do the petitioners’ alleged injuries fall within the purview of the CSA. The CSA was enacted to provide a permanent source of revenue for drug enforcement to test marijuana, nor to enact the law to protect “market opportunities” to create “cannabinoid-based drugs.” also

The DOJ filing says the drug-testing group and pharmaceutical company are not “adequate challengers” to the marijuana rescheduling movement.

“The intended beneficiaries of the CSA are therefore the United States public and scientists and physicians seeking legitimate access to controlled substances for research and patient treatment. Petitioners are not the intended beneficiaries of the CSA, nor are their interests systematically aligned with those beneficiaries. Petitioners invoke (1) the interests of drug controllers; to avoid cost losses in business; drug testing protocols; and (3) to prevent market competition by a pharmaceutical company (MMJ), therefore, They call the pocket interests that all marijuana is kept in Schedule I.

NDASA and MMJ argued in their stay motion that cannabis is a “dangerous drug that destroys lives,” and asked the court to suspend reform “to avoid the devastating consequences of ballooning marijuana while this case is pending.”

But the government said in its opposition document that “as the reorganization order recognizes, 40 states have already ‘legalized the sale and use of marijuana for medical purposes’.”

“In light of existing state practice, there is no basis to believe that the limited reorganization action here would result in such prejudice in this appeal,” he said.

This week, Two medical marijuana companies filed a motion to intervene in the reconsideration case siding with the government and opposing the prohibition lawsuits.

The evolution of the case is coming The DEA this week began an administrative hearing on the proposed marijuana redistricting government witnesses and lawyers present highlighting the medical uses and relative safety of cannabis opponents, meanwhile, challenge the process by which officials developed the recommendation for reform.

Under an action announced in April by Attorney General Todd Blanche, marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license were immediately changed from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Annex, as well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The ongoing hearing is looking at broader rescheduling of cannabis, including for recreational products.

The challenge to SAM and NDASA’s reconsideration request was signed by attorneys at Torridon Law PLCC, where former US Attorney General William Barr, who led the DOJ during Trump’s first term, is a partner.

SAM announced in January that it was Hiring Barr’s firm to fight cannabis rescheduling After Trump signed an executive order directing officials to quickly complete the process.

Meanwhile, the Appropriations Committee of the Chamber Federal officials voted to block further steps to reschedule cannabis. Bipartisan lawmakers told Marijuana Moment, however don’t expect legislative efforts to block rescheduling to be successful.

Separately, SAM, MMJ and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking to block the Trump administration’s program. Certain hemp-derived products are covered by Medicare. That the case was dismissed by a federal judge in May, though that decision is being appealed.

Read the full DOJ short in the marijuana reorganization case below: