WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 /PRNewswire/ -- In a judicial ruling today, in ASA v. HHS in which the plaintiffs claimed that the United States Government disseminated inaccurate information when it concluded that medical marijuana had no medical benefits, the court opined:
"Because HHS's response to the organization's IQA petition did not constitute final agency action, the district court had no jurisdiction under the, Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 551 et seq., and neither do we. We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of the case."
Observations of the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness:
First, surprisingly no judge would put their name on the opinion.
Second, why did it take nearly eighteen months after oral arguments to write a five page document?
Third, why did the court not give consideration to HHS guidelines which says you must act if failure to act unduly delays the protection of public health? (ASA first filed a request for correction under the DQA more than five years ago).
Fourth, why did the court not issue its opinion as a published opinion with the name of the judge who is responsible for writing the opinion?
As CRE often stated, few Circuit Courts have the stature to overturn a federal agency on a major issue other than the DC Circuit.
Obviously the Ninth Circuit does not want to be the court which opens the door to the legalization of medical marijuana.
The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness http://thecre.com/ was the original proponent of the Information [Data] Quality Act. Contact Jim Tozzi 202.265.2383
SOURCE Center for Regulatory Effectiveness