Doctors and Pharma Company Sue Trump Over Cannabis Rescheduling Order

A Third Lawsuit Lands on the Rescheduling Pile

Cannabis rescheduling just picked up its third — and perhaps most unusual — legal challenge. On May 28, the final day of the 30-day window following the order's publication in the Federal Register, a coalition of five petitioners filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Their argument: they are "aggrieved" by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's April 22 order that immediately moved state-licensed medical cannabis and FDA-approved cannabis products from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act.

Unlike the state attorneys general lawsuits filed weeks earlier by Indiana, Nebraska, and (briefly) Louisiana, this challenge comes from private citizens and organizations — a mix of anti-marijuana activists, substance misuse professionals, physicians, and, perhaps most surprisingly, a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical company.

Who Filed the Lawsuit — and Why

The five petitioners paint a revealing picture of the opposition landscape:

New Directions Addiction Recovery Services operates addiction treatment programs and argues that easier access to cannabis under Schedule III will increase the number of patients struggling with cannabis use disorder, putting strain on its facilities and complicating treatment outcomes.

Cannabis Industry Victims Educating Litigators (CIVEL) is an advocacy organization that positions itself as a voice for people harmed by the cannabis industry. Their involvement signals a growing organized opposition movement that frames rescheduling as a public health threat rather than a policy advancement.

MMJ International Holdings, a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation, has perhaps the most counterintuitive position. While one might expect a cannabis company to support rescheduling, MMJ International argues that the order was procedurally deficient and could undermine the regulatory framework the company relies on for its FDA-track pharmaceutical products. For companies that invested heavily in the traditional FDA approval pipeline, a broad rescheduling that opens the door to state-licensed products could dilute their competitive advantage.

Two individual medical doctors round out the coalition, presumably arguing that rescheduling was premature given what they view as insufficient evidence of medical efficacy or safety.

The Legal Arguments: Process Over Substance

The petition does not merely argue that cannabis should remain in Schedule I. Instead, it takes aim at the process through which the rescheduling was accomplished. The suit claims the Final Order was issued:

• Without prior notice-and-comment rulemaking
• Without a formal hearing on the record
• Without consultation or recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
• Without consideration of the administrative rescheduling process that was already in progress
• Without compliance with established procedural requirements under the CSA

This procedural attack strategy is notable because it sidesteps the harder scientific debate about whether cannabis belongs in Schedule III and instead focuses on whether the government followed its own rules. In a post-Chevron legal landscape — after the Supreme Court's 2024 Loper Bright decision ended judicial deference to federal agency interpretations — procedural challenges carry significantly more weight than they once did.

Three Lawsuits, One Consolidated Case

The D.C. Circuit clerk has ordered all three rescheduling petitions consolidated under a single case. That means the "aggrieved persons" lawsuit will be heard alongside:

• The SAM/NDASA petition (filed May 4), brought by Smart Approaches to Marijuana and the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association, two of the most prominent anti-legalization organizations in the country.
• The state attorneys general petition (filed May 22), originally brought by the AGs of Indiana, Nebraska, and Louisiana. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill subsequently withdrew from the case, leaving Indiana's Todd Rokita and Nebraska's Mike Hilgers as the remaining state-level challengers.

Consolidation means the court will evaluate all three challenges together, potentially producing a single ruling that addresses the procedural, constitutional, and standing questions raised across all petitions.

What This Means for the Rescheduling Timeline

The immediate Schedule III reclassification of state-licensed medical cannabis and FDA-approved products remains in effect while the litigation proceeds. The DOJ order was structured as a final agency action, meaning it took effect upon publication and does not automatically pause just because lawsuits were filed.

However, petitioners could request an emergency stay or injunction from the D.C. Circuit. If granted, such a stay could temporarily reverse the rescheduling for the products already moved to Schedule III — though legal experts consider this outcome unlikely given the strong executive authority arguments the government will invoke.

Meanwhile, the separate DEA administrative hearing set for June 29 will proceed independently. That hearing focuses on the broader question of whether all marijuana — not just the medical and FDA-approved products already rescheduled — should move to Schedule III. Even if the lawsuits succeed in reversing the April 22 order, the June 29 hearing could produce its own rescheduling through the traditional administrative process.

The Bigger Picture: A Legal Stress Test for Reform

The convergence of three lawsuits, an administrative hearing, and ongoing congressional debate over the Farm Bill's hemp provisions makes mid-2026 the most legally complex moment in American cannabis history. Every major pathway to reform — executive action, administrative procedure, and legislative change — is being simultaneously tested and challenged.

For cannabis businesses already operating under the new Schedule III framework, the lawsuits create uncertainty but not immediate operational changes. The 280E tax relief that came with rescheduling remains in place, and businesses that have already filed amended returns or adjusted their tax strategies are not being asked to reverse course.

For consumers and patients, the practical impact is minimal in the short term. State-licensed medical cannabis programs continue operating as they have, and the rescheduling has not changed what products are available at dispensaries.

The real stakes are institutional. If the courts rule that the Trump administration's rescheduling process was procedurally deficient, it would not necessarily mean cannabis stays in Schedule I forever — but it would mean the government would need to go through a longer, more deliberate rulemaking process to achieve the same result. That process could take years.

What Comes Next

The D.C. Circuit will set a briefing schedule for the consolidated case in the coming weeks. Given the complexity of the issues and the number of parties involved, oral arguments are unlikely before late 2026 or early 2027.

In the meantime, the June 29 DEA hearing will provide the first formal evidentiary proceeding on broader rescheduling. Whatever the hearing produces — a recommendation for or against moving all cannabis to Schedule III — will feed into the ongoing legal and policy debates.

For now, the cannabis industry watches and waits, operating in a legal environment where the ground rules are being written, challenged, and rewritten in real time.