Cannabis Rescheduling Hearing Opens — DEA Let Only Critics Testify

The DEA's cannabis rescheduling hearing opened June 29, 2026, in Arlington, Virginia — the most consequential federal cannabis proceeding in half a century. Every one of the seven parties the agency cleared to testify opposes moving marijuana to Schedule III, and the reform advocates who spent decades pushing for the change were shut out.

The Drug Enforcement Administration is weighing whether to reclassify marijuana out of Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act — the category the federal government treats as having no accepted medical use — and down to Schedule III, the tier that already contains drugs such as ketamine and anabolic steroids. Proceedings began at the agency's hearing facility on Army Navy Drive before Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius, and are set to run through July 15, with a break around the Independence Day holiday.

What is the DEA cannabis rescheduling hearing deciding?

A shift to Schedule III was first floated in a May 2024 federal rulemaking, and this hearing takes up whether to apply that shift to cannabis across the board. It follows an April 23, 2026 order from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche that had already reclassified two narrow categories — FDA-approved marijuana medicines and cannabis sold under a state medical license — to Schedule III. That earlier order was far more limited than the sweeping rescheduling now on the table.

Rescheduling is not the same as legalization, and the distinction matters. Cannabis would remain a federally controlled substance, and state-licensed dispensaries would keep operating in a legal gray zone. (For the difference between these terms, see our glossary entries on decriminalization and adult-use cannabis.)

The practical stakes are still large. Dropping to Schedule III would blunt 280E — the provision of the tax code, which reaches only Schedule I and II substances, that bars cannabis companies from writing off ordinary operating costs and leaves licensed operators paying hundreds of millions in extra federal tax every year. It would also remove much of the friction that has made cannabis difficult to research in clinical settings.

Why can only critics testify at the hearing?

The loudest objection concerns who is allowed to testify. The DEA approved seven participants — including the anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana and a bloc of states — and every one of them opposes rescheduling. No cannabis-industry, medical-program, or reform-oriented group made the list.

On the opening day, DEA attorney James J. Schwartz put forward the government's first witness, the FDA's Dominic Chiapperino, Ph.D. The next day, a New Hampshire physician, Corey Burchman, took the stand to describe treating pain patients.

Reform advocates argue that a record built this way is engineered to capture only one half of the debate — a criticism likely to hang over whatever recommendation emerges.

What happens after the rescheduling hearing?

The hearing is slated to wrap by July 15. From there, the administrative law judge forwards a recommendation to the DEA Administrator, who holds the final decision. That outcome can then be contested in court, which means a genuinely final resolution could slip into next year even if the judge sides with rescheduling.

We are tracking each day of the hearing, and the broader path of federal reform, on our rescheduling status hub — and mapping how policy shifts play out state by state on the cannabis laws hub. If a downschedule reshapes what the industry can deduct and hire for, it will show up first in the cannabis jobs board.

Sources: DEA press release (June 25, 2026); Federal Register: Rescheduling of Marijuana (May 21, 2024); Cannabis Business Times.