Another Blow to DEA as Federal Court Reins in its Use of ISOs

By: Hunter DeKoninck

On March 23, 2026, a federal district court issued an important ruling in Adya LLC v. United States DEA, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60710, granting partial relief to an Orlando-based pharmacy after finding serious legal flaws in how DEA went about issuing an ISO against it.

Background: A Sudden Shutdown

Adya LLC, operating as SmartCareRx, spent five years serving hundreds of customers in Orlando. In December 2025, DEA issued an Immediate Suspension Order (ISO), revoking the pharmacy’s ability to dispense controlled substances. The impact was immediate and severe. Patients and physicians were forced to go elsewhere, and the pharmacy’s business began to deteriorate. Eventually, the pharmacy turned to federal court for it to review the ISO and rule on a number of important issues.

The Legal Fight

SmartCareRx asked the court for a preliminary injunction, arguing that the DEA:

1. Acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the Administrative Procedure Act; and

2. Violated its Fifth Amendment right to due process by failing to provide a timely hearing.

The court agreed with the pharmacy on both points.

Key Ruling: Likely Violations by the DEA

To grant a preliminary injunction, courts assess whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Here, the court found SmartCareRx met that burden on both claims.

1. Arbitrary and Capricious Action

The DEA justified its emergency suspension by claiming “imminent danger” to public health. But the court identified major gaps:

• Unexplained delay: The DEA waited over four months after finishing its investigation before it eventually issued the ISO—undermining its claim of urgency. It is not unusual for DEA to wait months between closing its investigation and issuing ISOs, so the aspect of the ruling is critical in that it will compel DEA to adjust its approach to how and when it issues ISOs going forward.

• Logical inconsistencies: The agency alleged suspicious drug transactions that didn’t align chronologically.

• Weak evidence: Claims that prescriptions were issued to “fictitious patients” were not adequately supported—and difficult for the pharmacy to rebut.

• Overbroad action: The DEA suspended all controlled substances, even though its concerns focused on just three.

Taken together, the court found the agency failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision.

2. Due Process Failures

Even when emergency action is allowed, the law requires a prompt post-deprivation hearing.

That didn’t happen.

• Three months after the suspension, no hearing had been held—or even scheduled.

• The DEA could not say when one might occur.

• At one point, agency counsel was unsure whether any administrative law judge was available.

The court concluded that this indefinite delay likely violates the Fifth Amendment. A business cannot be shut down indefinitely without a meaningful opportunity to respond.

Irreparable Harm to the Pharmacy

The court also found that SmartCareRx is suffering real and ongoing harm:

• Loss of customers and physician relationships

• Damage to reputation and goodwill

• Declining revenue and risk of layoffs

Because these harms are difficult—or impossible—to recover through monetary damages, they weighed strongly in favor of immediate relief.

The Court’s Solution: A Narrow Injunction

Rather than fully overturning the DEA’s order, the court crafted a limited remedy:

• The suspension is lifted for all controlled substances except three:

  • Oxycodone

  • Hydromorphone

  • Promethazine with codeine

• The DEA must return registrations and certain seized substances (excluding those three drugs).

• The injunction lasts only until the DEA issues a final decision.

• SmartCareRx must post a $30,000 bond.

This approach balances the pharmacy’s business interests with the government’s public safety concerns.

Why This Case Matters

This ruling sends a clear message about the limits of agency power:

• Emergency authority is not unlimited. DEA must justify claims of “imminent danger” with clear reasoning and the timing of when DEA issues ISOs after investigations must demonstrate such imminence exists.

• Due process still applies. Even in urgent situations, the government must provide timely hearings.

• Courts can intervene early. District courts retain authority to review interim agency actions like ISOs.

For pharmacies and other regulated businesses, the case highlights an important safeguard: even powerful regulators like the DEA must follow the law—and courts are willing to step in when they don’t.