DEA Kicks Off Historic Cannabis Rescheduling Hearing Amid Lawsuits and Exclusion Controversy
核心洞察
The DEA has begun a historic hearing on rescheduling cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III, with only opponents of reform permitted to testify.
NORML and other cannabis advocacy groups were denied participation, prompting lawsuits challenging the legality of the rescheduling process.
MMJ International Holdings (搜索) has filed consolidated legal challenges arguing the government issued a Final Order before completing required hearing procedures.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (搜索) has commenced a historic hearing on the proposal to reschedule cannabis under the federal Controlled Substances Act, a proceeding that has drawn sharp criticism from reform advocates and sparked multiple legal challenges. The hearing, which began June 29, 2026, will hear testimony exclusively from parties opposed to rescheduling, a structure that has left many cannabis policy reform organizations excluded and deeply concerned about the fairness of the process.
Because the rescheduling proposal originated with the DEA, the agency serves as the proponent of the reform through the hearing. As a result, only individuals and groups opposed to rescheduling are permitted to testify. Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius signed a 12-page order setting initial timelines for designated participating parties, noting that the government, "as the proponent of the proposed rule, has the burden of proof" in defending the move to reclassify marijuana to Schedule III.
Advocacy Groups Voice Strong Opposition to Exclusion
The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (搜索) (NORML) sought to testify at the hearing, arguing that cannabis should be removed from the CSA altogether. Joseph A. Bondy, chair of NORML's board of directors, expressed the organization's frustration: "We are disappointed that DEA has denied NORML's request to participate in this hearing, and are especially troubled by the premise of that denial: that the nation's leading cannabis consumer advocacy organization is not sufficiently affected by a proceeding that will help shape the federal treatment of millions of state-law-compliant cannabis consumers."
Bondy further emphasized that "a fair administrative process should include the voices of those most directly affected by federal cannabis policy: consumers, patients, and the communities that have lived under prohibition. Excluding NORML from this hearing deprives the record of that perspective and risks producing a process that is materially incomplete."
Adam Rosenberg, board chair of the National Cannabis Industry Association (搜索) (NCIA), also disagreed with the administrative law judge's decision, stating that the group's request to participate "demonstrated the unique and valuable perspective that state-licensed cannabis businesses deserve to have represented in the process." Rosenberg added that "regardless of the structure of these proceedings, NCIA remains focused on advancing federal cannabis reform through multiple channels, including engagement with Congress, federal agencies, state regulators, and other key stakeholders."
Ryan Hunter, chief revenue officer at cannabis products manufacturer Spherex, noted that "it is worrying to see that all of the invited participants, including Smart Approaches to Marijuana and the National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association, have an anti-cannabis track record. Though this is the standard for DEA hearings, it does not feel balanced, and leaves us concerned that important perspectives and data will not be well represented in the process."
Some See Procedural Efficiency in Limited Testimony
Not all reform advocates view the exclusion as detrimental. Sasha Kalcheff-Korn, executive director of medical cannabis advocacy group Realm of Caring, offered a contrasting perspective: "Today's DEA hearing on cannabis rescheduling is an important next step for federal reform. While some stakeholders that support rescheduling were disappointed that they were not selected to testify, the exclusion of pro-cannabis voices should not be interpreted as a setback."
Kalcheff-Korn explained that "the scientific and medical evidence supporting rescheduling has already been extensively evaluated through the federal review process. The goal of this hearing is to provide a forum for those who argue they would be adversely affected by rescheduling. What we ultimately want is for the process to continue without any delays and to reach a final decision grounded in evidence, public health considerations, and the growing body of research demonstrating cannabis's medical value."
Legal Challenges Mount Against Rescheduling Order
Parallel to the hearing, MMJ International Holdings (搜索), MMJ BioPharma Cultivation, and MMJ BioPharma Labs have advanced a legal challenge to the federal government's marijuana rescheduling order in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The litigation challenges the April 22, 2026 Final Order issued by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, which immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis and FDA-approved marijuana products from Schedule I to Schedule III.
The consolidated proceedings include MMJIH's Petition for Review filed May 29, 2026; a Joint Motion for Stay Pending Review filed June 9, 2026; and a June 18, 2026 Statement of Issues seeking vacatur of the Final Order. Duane Boise, President and CEO of MMJ International Holdings (搜索), stated: "The government wants the public focused on a hearing scheduled for June 29. But the operative legal event already occurred. The question now is whether that order survives judicial review."
According to the filings, the government issued a Final Order before conducting the hearing process required under the Controlled Substances Act, terminated an existing hearing process that had been underway since 2024, and then attempted to replace it with a new expedited proceeding. "The issue is not whether marijuana should remain in Schedule I," Boise said. "The issue is whether federal agencies must follow the law when they fundamentally restructure a multi-billion-dollar industry."
MMJIH further argues that the Final Order creates a regulatory contradiction that DEA itself warned against in its 2020 Final Rule governing marijuana manufacturers. In that rule, DEA stated that state marijuana licenses do not satisfy federal law, cannot substitute for DEA registration, and do not authorize participation in the Controlled Substances Act's closed system of distribution. MMJIH has invested more than eight years and millions developing pharmaceutical cannabinoid therapeutics under FDA oversight, holds active Investigational New Drug applications, and maintains FDA Orphan Drug Designation for its Huntington's disease (搜索) program.
"The Court now has before it the stay motion, the petition for review, and the issues presented for decision," Boise concluded. "The legality of marijuana rescheduling will ultimately be determined in the federal courts, not by a hearing convened after the government already issued its Final Order."
The DEA rescheduling hearing is open to the public and members of the media, although the agency's administrative law judge has rejected calls for the proceedings to be livestreamed.