DEA Cannabis Rescheduling Hearing Set for June 29: Who's at the Table

Ready to find a dispensary near you? Budpedia is the verified directory with real menus, live deals, and city-by-city coverage you can trust.

The DEA Rescheduling Hearing That Could Redefine Federal Cannabis Policy

For decades, marijuana has occupied the most restrictive category in the federal drug scheduling system — Schedule I, alongside heroin and LSD — a classification that labels it as having no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. On June 29, 2026, the Drug Enforcement Administration will open a formal hearing at its facility in Arlington, Virginia, to consider whether all marijuana should be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III. The proceedings are expected to run through July 15, and the organizations lining up to participate represent every corner of the cannabis debate.

The public comment deadline is May 28, 2026, and the final hours before that cutoff have turned into a scramble among advocacy groups, industry organizations, and opposition voices racing to secure their seats at what many are calling the most consequential federal cannabis proceeding in half a century.

How We Got Here: Acting AG Todd Blanche and the April 23 Order

The hearing stems from an order issued by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on April 23, 2026, directing the DEA to initiate formal rulemaking proceedings on rescheduling marijuana. The order did not come out of nowhere. It followed years of mounting political pressure, a recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services, and growing public consensus that the Schedule I classification is scientifically and politically unsustainable.

The HHS recommendation, which originated from the FDA's own scientific review, concluded that marijuana has accepted medical use in treatment, a lower potential for abuse than Schedule I and II substances, and a moderate-to-low risk of physical dependence. Those findings align with the statutory criteria for Schedule III, which includes substances like testosterone, ketamine, and anabolic steroids.

Blanche's order set the process in motion by establishing the formal hearing framework, designating the Arlington DEA facility as the venue, and setting the May 28 deadline for organizations and individuals wishing to participate. The hearing itself will operate under administrative law procedures, with an administrative law judge presiding and parties presenting testimony, cross-examining witnesses, and entering evidence into the record.

Who Has Filed to Participate — and Why It Matters

The parties that secure seats at the June 29 hearing will shape the evidentiary record that the DEA administrator ultimately relies on to make a scheduling decision. This is not a public town hall or a listening session. It is a quasi-judicial proceeding, and the testimony and evidence entered into the record carry legal weight. Who participates — and what they present — will directly influence whether marijuana moves to Schedule III, stays at Schedule I, or lands somewhere in between.

NORML: The Consumer Voice

The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws filed its notice of participation with a clear argument: consumers must be represented at the table. NORML's position is that the scheduling decision affects tens of millions of Americans who use cannabis — both medical patients relying on it for treatment and adult consumers in states where it is legal — and that their perspectives and experiences are relevant to the administrative record.

NORML has been the most visible consumer advocacy organization in the cannabis space for over five decades, and its participation will likely focus on several key themes. The organization is expected to present evidence on the safety profile of cannabis relative to other scheduled substances, the harm caused by Schedule I classification to patients and consumers, the disconnect between federal scheduling and the reality of state-legal markets operating in 24 states plus the District of Columbia, and the consequences of criminal enforcement under the current classification.

The consumer angle is not window dressing. Administrative law proceedings benefit from diverse evidentiary perspectives, and the DEA's own scheduling criteria require consideration of the substance's actual pattern of use, not just its pharmacological profile. NORML's participation ensures that real-world usage data and consumer impact enter the record alongside clinical research and law enforcement testimony.

Smart Approaches to Marijuana: The Opposition Files

On the other side of the table, Smart Approaches to Marijuana has also filed notice to participate. SAM, founded by former Obama administration drug policy advisor Kevin Sabet, has been the most organized and well-funded opposition voice in the cannabis reform debate. The organization opposes both recreational legalization and rescheduling, arguing that loosening federal controls would increase cannabis use, particularly among young people, and that the public health risks of marijuana are underappreciated.

SAM's participation at the hearing signals that the proceeding will not be one-sided. The organization is expected to challenge the scientific evidence supporting rescheduling, present data on cannabis-related emergency department visits and mental health concerns, and argue that the HHS recommendation relied on an incomplete assessment of marijuana's risks.

The presence of a well-organized opposition is actually procedurally important. Administrative decisions that lack adversarial testing of the evidence are more vulnerable to legal challenge. SAM's participation, while unwelcome to reform advocates, will produce a more durable record regardless of the outcome.

Industry Groups and Research Organizations

Beyond NORML and SAM, multiple cannabis industry trade associations are expected to file before the May 28 deadline. Industry groups have a direct financial stake in the outcome — Schedule III classification would open the door to federal tax deductions currently barred by Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which prohibits businesses trafficking in Schedule I or II substances from deducting ordinary business expenses. The tax implications alone represent billions of dollars across the legal cannabis industry.

Research organizations and academic institutions are also expected to participate, presenting evidence on the therapeutic potential of cannabis and the ways in which Schedule I classification has impeded clinical research. The irony of the current system — marijuana is classified as having no accepted medical use, but the classification itself makes it extraordinarily difficult to conduct the research that would establish accepted medical use — has been a persistent criticism from the scientific community.

What Schedule III Would Actually Change

The distinction between Schedule I and Schedule III is not merely symbolic. It would trigger concrete regulatory, legal, and economic shifts that would ripple through the cannabis landscape.

Tax Relief Under 280E

The most immediate financial impact would be the elimination of the 280E tax burden. Currently, cannabis businesses operating legally under state law cannot deduct rent, payroll, marketing, or other standard business expenses from their federal taxes because they are trafficking in a Schedule I substance. This effectively pushes their real tax rate to 60 percent or higher in some cases. Schedule III classification would allow these businesses to claim the same deductions available to every other legal business in America.

Research Access

Schedule III substances face fewer regulatory barriers to clinical research than Schedule I substances. While researchers would still need DEA registration and institutional review board approval, the process would be substantially streamlined. The practical effect would be an expansion of university and institutional research into cannabis therapeutics, dosing, drug interactions, and long-term health outcomes — areas where the evidence base remains thinner than it should be precisely because Schedule I classification has made the research so difficult to conduct.

What Would Not Change

It is important to be clear about what rescheduling would not do. Moving marijuana to Schedule III would not legalize recreational cannabis at the federal level. It would not automatically resolve the conflict between federal and state law. It would not permit interstate cannabis commerce. And it would not force any federal agency to treat marijuana the same as other Schedule III substances across all regulatory contexts.

Cannabis would still be a controlled substance, still subject to DEA regulation, and still technically illegal to manufacture, distribute, or possess without a DEA registration. The state-legal recreational markets that exist today would still operate in a legal gray area under federal law, though enforcement discretion and political reality would likely continue to protect them.

The Hearing Format and What to Expect

The June 29 hearing will operate under the formal rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act. An administrative law judge will preside, and the proceedings will include opening statements from participating parties, direct testimony from witnesses, cross-examination, and closing arguments. The hearing is expected to run through July 15, reflecting the complexity of the issues and the number of parties involved.

After the hearing concludes, the administrative law judge will issue recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law to the DEA administrator. The administrator will then make the final scheduling decision, which can accept, reject, or modify the judge's recommendations. That decision is subject to judicial review in the federal courts.

The timeline from hearing to final rule is uncertain. Previous DEA scheduling proceedings have taken anywhere from months to years, and the political dynamics surrounding this particular decision add an additional layer of unpredictability. Cannabis industry analysts generally expect a final rule sometime in late 2026 or early 2027, though legal challenges could extend that timeline significantly.

The May 28 Deadline and the Final Push

With the participation deadline arriving on May 28, 2026, organizations across the spectrum are in a final push to file their notices. The deadline applies to any party wishing to participate as a formal participant in the hearing — which grants the right to present testimony, cross-examine witnesses, and enter evidence into the record.

The distinction between filing as a formal participant and simply submitting public comments is significant. Public comments become part of the administrative record, but they do not carry the same procedural weight as testimony presented under oath and subjected to cross-examination. Organizations that miss the May 28 deadline may still be able to submit written comments, but they will not have a seat at the table during the hearing itself.

For consumers, the practical advice is straightforward: if you care about the outcome of this proceeding, ensure that the organizations representing your interests have filed to participate. The administrative record that emerges from this hearing will be the evidentiary foundation for whatever the DEA ultimately decides.

What This Means for the Future of Federal Cannabis Policy

The June 29 hearing represents a genuine inflection point. Regardless of the outcome, the fact that the federal government is formally considering rescheduling marijuana through an open, adversarial proceeding marks a departure from decades of reflexive prohibition. The proceeding will produce a public record of expert testimony, cross-examination, and evidence that will inform not just the DEA's decision but future Congressional action, state policy decisions, and judicial proceedings.

If the hearing results in a move to Schedule III, the cannabis industry will enter a fundamentally different operating environment — one with lower tax burdens, expanded research access, and a degree of federal legitimacy that has been absent since the Controlled Substances Act was passed in 1970. If the hearing results in no change, the evidentiary record will still exist, providing ammunition for legislative efforts and future administrative proceedings.

Either way, the organizations that secure seats at the Arlington hearing between June 29 and July 15 will be the ones writing the next chapter of federal cannabis policy. The May 28 deadline is not a formality. It is the entry ticket to one of the most significant regulatory proceedings the cannabis movement has ever faced.