DEA Rescheduling Hearing June 29: NORML and SAM Square Off

The most consequential cannabis policy proceeding in half a century begins in thirty days. On June 29, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time, the Drug Enforcement Administration will convene an administrative hearing at its facility at 700 Army Navy Drive in Arlington, Virginia, to consider whether marijuana should be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. The hearing is expected to conclude by July 15.

Two of the most prominent advocacy organizations in cannabis policy have already filed their Notices of Intention to Participate, setting the stage for a hearing that will pit vastly different visions of marijuana reform against each other in an administrative law proceeding with generational consequences.

What this hearing is — and what it is not

Before diving into the participants and the stakes, it is important to understand the scope of this proceeding. On April 23, 2026, the Department of Justice moved FDA-approved and state-licensed medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, effective April 28. That action was narrowly tailored. It applied to cannabis within two specific categories: products that have received FDA approval (currently limited to Epidiolex and a handful of synthetic formulations) and marijuana cultivated, processed, and dispensed under state-licensed medical programs.

The June 29 hearing addresses the broader question. Should all marijuana — not just the medical marijuana already reclassified — be moved to Schedule III? The answer will determine the federal legal framework for cannabis that falls outside FDA-approved and state-licensed medical channels, including the adult-use markets that now operate in more than two dozen states.

Cannabis that exists outside those two categories currently remains Schedule I. The hearing is the mechanism through which the DEA will gather evidence and testimony to determine whether that status should change.

NORML files to participate: the consumer voice

The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws filed its Notice of Intention to Participate on the grounds that the hearing would be fundamentally incomplete without representation from the perspective of adult cannabis consumers.

NORML's argument is straightforward. The organization contends that the existing rescheduling framework, while a meaningful step forward, treats cannabis reform as a medical and pharmaceutical question while ignoring the tens of millions of Americans who consume cannabis recreationally in states where it is legal. If the hearing proceeds without testimony addressing adult-use consumption patterns, consumer safety, and the social and economic dimensions of cannabis use beyond the clinical setting, the evidentiary record will be skewed toward a pharmaceutical model that does not reflect how most Americans actually interact with the plant.

This framing matters for the outcome. Schedule III classification carries specific regulatory implications. Substances in Schedule III can be prescribed by licensed physicians, are subject to DEA registration requirements for manufacturers and distributors, and carry less severe penalties for unauthorized possession than Schedule I substances. But Schedule III does not, on its own, create a framework for the kind of regulated commercial adult-use markets that currently exist in states like California, Colorado, and Illinois.

NORML's participation is an attempt to ensure that the administrative record reflects the reality that cannabis reform in America has already moved well beyond the medical model. Their testimony is expected to address the public health outcomes observed in states with legal adult-use programs, the economic impact of regulated cannabis markets, and the ongoing harms of criminal prohibition for consumers who do not have access to medical programs.

SAM opposes: the case against rescheduling

On the other side of the hearing room, Smart Approaches to Marijuana has filed its own Notice of Intention to Participate. SAM's position is unambiguous: the organization opposes rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I.

Founded in 2013 by former congressman Patrick Kennedy and policy adviser Kevin Sabet, SAM has been the most visible national organization advocating against the commercial cannabis industry. SAM's central argument has remained consistent over the years: that rescheduling marijuana would normalize a substance the organization considers harmful, undermine public health messaging about cannabis risks, and accelerate the commercialization of a product that SAM argues the for-profit industry has designed to be increasingly potent and increasingly addictive.

SAM is expected to present testimony focused on youth use rates, the potency of modern cannabis products, emergency department visits associated with cannabis consumption, and what the organization characterizes as the public health consequences of commercialization. The organization has consistently pointed to the rise of high-THC concentrates and edibles as evidence that the cannabis industry, left to market forces, will optimize for potency and addiction potential in ways that mirror the tobacco industry's history.

The hearing format will allow both sides to present witnesses, cross-examine opposing witnesses, and submit documentary evidence. This adversarial structure is precisely why both organizations filed early — the administrative record created during these proceedings will shape any final rule the DEA produces.

The regulatory landscape heading into the hearing

The June 29 hearing does not exist in a vacuum. The regulatory environment around cannabis has shifted dramatically in the weeks leading up to it.

Following the April 23 DOJ action that moved state-licensed medical marijuana to Schedule III, the DEA confirmed that new registration forms are coming for medical cannabis cultivators, manufacturers, testing laboratories, and distributors. States with medical programs are already navigating the compliance requirements of operating within the DEA's registration framework — a process that has created both opportunities and administrative burdens for existing licensees.

In California alone, an estimated 1,600 licensees are pursuing DEA registration under a 60-day window that closes June 22, just one week before the hearing begins. The parallel timing is not coincidental. The DEA is simultaneously building the regulatory infrastructure for the medical cannabis it has already reclassified while considering whether to extend that reclassification to the broader marijuana market.

This dual-track approach creates a complex backdrop for the hearing. Witnesses on both sides will need to address not only the theoretical question of whether marijuana meets the criteria for Schedule III classification but also the practical question of how rescheduling would interact with the regulatory systems already taking shape under the April 23 action.

What Schedule III would mean in practice

For advocates of rescheduling, the practical implications are significant. Schedule III classification would make cannabis businesses eligible for standard federal tax deductions currently denied under Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which prohibits businesses trafficking in Schedule I or Schedule II substances from deducting ordinary business expenses. The financial impact of 280E on cannabis operators has been enormous — effective tax rates exceeding 70 percent are common — and elimination of this burden would represent the single largest financial change the industry has experienced.

Schedule III would also reduce federal criminal penalties for marijuana offenses, open the door to interstate commerce in cannabis products (though this would require additional regulatory action), and make it significantly easier for researchers to study cannabis by eliminating the onerous Schedule I research protocols that have constrained scientific inquiry for decades.

For opponents like SAM, these same implications are precisely the problem. Lower barriers to entry, reduced penalties, and easier access are, in SAM's framing, accelerants for an industry the organization believes is already causing significant public harm.

The hearing format and timeline

The DEA's administrative hearing will be presided over by an administrative law judge. The format allows for opening statements, direct testimony from expert witnesses, cross-examination, and closing arguments. Both NORML and SAM, along with any other organizations that file timely Notices of Intention to Participate, will have the opportunity to present their cases.

The hearing is expected to run from June 29 through July 15, though the administrative law judge has the discretion to extend the proceedings if the volume of testimony warrants it. Following the hearing, the judge will issue recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the DEA Administrator will then consider in making a final determination.

It is worth noting that this process is not fast. Even after the hearing concludes, the rulemaking process could take months or longer. The April 23 action that reclassified medical marijuana took years to move from the initial Health and Human Services recommendation through the DOJ and DEA review processes to final implementation.

What to watch for

Several factors will shape the trajectory of the hearing and its ultimate impact.

First, the witness lists. The credibility and expertise of the witnesses presented by each side will heavily influence the administrative record. NORML is likely to call public health researchers, economists, and state regulators who can speak to the outcomes of legal cannabis programs. SAM is likely to present psychiatrists, addiction specialists, and law enforcement officials who can testify to the harms they attribute to cannabis use and commercialization.

Second, the cross-examination dynamics. Administrative hearings allow for adversarial cross-examination, which means that the claims made by each side's witnesses will be tested under questioning by opposing counsel. The strength or weakness of specific factual claims — youth use trends, public health data, economic impact figures — will be revealed through this process.

Third, the political context. The hearing is taking place against a backdrop of broad public support for cannabis reform. Polling consistently shows that a significant majority of Americans support some form of legalization. Whether and how that political reality influences the administrative process remains to be seen, but the hearing participants are aware that the political environment has shifted decisively in favor of reform.

The stakes

The June 29 hearing represents a pivotal moment in American cannabis policy. The narrow rescheduling of medical marijuana in April opened a door. The question now is how far that door will swing.

If the DEA ultimately moves all marijuana to Schedule III, the federal legal landscape for cannabis will be fundamentally transformed. If the agency declines to reschedule beyond the current medical framework, the split between federal prohibition and state-level legalization will persist, continuing to create the legal contradictions and business challenges that have defined the industry for the past decade.

NORML and SAM have drawn their lines. The hearing begins June 29 at 9:00 a.m. ET in Arlington, Virginia. The outcome will shape cannabis policy for years to come.