The federal government’s long-running marijuana rescheduling process has moved another step closer to a potentially decisive recommendation after the Drug Enforcement Administration’s chief administrative law judge rejected an effort to reopen the case for additional testimony and discovery. Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek C. Julius ruled October 22 that opponents of moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III had not shown sufficient reason to restart the evidentiary hearing that concluded during the summer.
Julius did, however, agree to place a new Government Accountability Office report on federal drug-scheduling procedures into the administrative record and will allow limited written arguments about what weight the report should receive. Initial briefs are due October 29, with replies due November 5. The case remains temporarily stayed until that briefing period ends, meaning November 5 has become the next major procedural deadline in one of the most consequential federal cannabis proceedings in decades. The date is not a deadline for a final rescheduling decision, but it could mark the end of the remaining supplemental arguments before the judge prepares his recommendation.
Judge Refuses to Restart the Completed Marijuana Hearing
The latest dispute began after DUID Victim Voices, physician Kenneth Finn and the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association asked the tribunal to reopen the marijuana hearing for limited discovery and new testimony. The groups participated in the formal hearing as opponents of broader marijuana rescheduling and argued that a September Government Accountability Office report raised questions significant enough to justify examining additional witnesses and government records.
The formal evidentiary hearing had already run from June 29 through July 15, producing more than 2,500 pages of witness testimony and thousands of additional pages of documents. Julius concluded that reopening such an extensive record required more than showing that new material had become available. Several issues opponents wanted to investigate either had already been available for examination during the hearing or were outside the narrow question the tribunal must decide: whether marijuana should be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act.
The judge emphasized that disagreement over whether the federal government has met its burden of proof belongs in the final evaluation of the record. It does not automatically justify giving parties another opportunity to conduct discovery or introduce evidence after the hearing has ended.
New GAO Report Triggered the Latest Legal Fight
The Government Accountability Office released its drug-scheduling report on September 23. The federal watchdog examined DEA and Food and Drug Administration procedures for evaluating and scheduling controlled substances and found that both agencies lacked sufficiently comprehensive written policies explaining various responsibilities and procedural steps.
GAO found that DEA does not have formal policies covering every aspect of how staff should conduct drug evaluations and make scheduling decisions. The FDA similarly lacks comprehensive procedures specifying how staff should conduct certain evaluations and develop scheduling recommendations. GAO also identified an outdated agreement governing consultation between FDA and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The watchdog recommended that the agencies develop more detailed written policies, and the Justice Department and Department of Health and Human Services agreed with the recommendations.
Those findings gave rescheduling opponents a new line of attack. They argued that deficiencies in written procedures raised questions about how federal agencies developed the marijuana recommendation and whether additional discovery was necessary to determine what standards officials actually used. DEA disputed the idea that the GAO findings undermined the marijuana proceeding, arguing that the report identified documentation and policy gaps rather than new scientific evidence concerning marijuana itself.
GAO Also Found DEA Consistently Followed HHS Recommendations
Although the GAO report identified procedural weaknesses, other parts of the review complicate arguments that the findings invalidate the marijuana rescheduling process. GAO examined 208 substances for which DEA took scheduling actions between 2020 and 2025. In 95 cases, DEA was required to obtain and consider a scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services.
GAO found that DEA considered HHS evaluations in all 95 of those cases. Among the 84 substances for which DEA had completed a final scheduling decision by the end of 2025, every final decision aligned with the HHS recommendation. The remaining substances were still subject to temporary scheduling orders. In other words, the report found significant gaps in written procedures but did not conclude that DEA routinely ignored scientific recommendations or improperly scheduled substances.
That distinction is now at the center of the supplemental briefing. Julius wants the parties to address whether the absence of comprehensive written policies is merely an administrative weakness that agencies should correct going forward or whether those shortcomings are serious enough to affect the validity of the specific marijuana proceeding now before him.
Opponents Wanted Discovery Into How Marijuana’s Medical Use Was Evaluated
The parties seeking to reopen the hearing proposed several areas for additional discovery. Among them were questions about the development of the two-part test used by federal health officials to determine whether marijuana has a currently accepted medical use in the United States. That analysis played a critical role in HHS’s recommendation that marijuana no longer belongs in Schedule I.
Opponents wanted to determine who developed or revised the test, what roles DEA, FDA, HHS, the National Institutes of Health and other government entities played, and why the federal evaluation addressed certain public-health issues differently from earlier marijuana reviews. They also sought further information about how FDA evaluates a drug’s potential for abuse and compares that abuse potential with substances already placed in Schedule III.
Julius concluded that most of those issues either were not material to the narrow legal question before him or could have been explored during the hearing. Participants were given substantial opportunities to question FDA officials about the evaluation process. The fact that opponents may now wish they had pursued additional lines of questioning does not, in the judge’s view, justify reopening a completed proceeding.
Judge Calls GAO Materials the Strongest Argument—but Still Says No
Julius acknowledged that the strongest argument for reopening involved the materials underlying the GAO report itself. Opponents wanted testimony and records showing exactly what policies, internal communications, training materials and procedural documents GAO reviewed when it concluded that the agencies lacked comprehensive scheduling policies.
Even there, however, the judge decided additional testimony would do more to complicate the case than clarify it. GAO is not a participant in the marijuana proceeding, and its published report already explains its conclusions. Julius therefore admitted the report itself into evidence but rejected the demand to investigate the government watchdog’s underlying work through another round of testimony and discovery.
The ruling substantially limits how much the GAO report can delay the case. Instead of restarting an evidentiary process that could have added weeks or months of testimony, subpoenas and procedural disputes, the judge is allowing the parties to debate the document through narrowly focused written briefs.
October 29 and November 5 Are Now the Critical Dates
Parties may submit optional supplemental briefs of no more than 10 double-spaced pages by October 29. Replies may then be filed by November 5. Julius has instructed participants to focus on two questions: how much weight the GAO report deserves and whether the procedural deficiencies identified by GAO are substantial enough to affect the specific marijuana rescheduling proposal.
The judge has also signaled that he does not want the supplemental process to expand again. Requests for additional briefing beyond the November 5 replies are disfavored. Interested parties cannot use the process to repeatedly answer one another or introduce an entirely new version of the case.
Once the November 5 briefing period closes, the stay automatically expires. Julius will then be able to move toward certifying the record and preparing his recommended decision. No public deadline currently requires him to issue that recommendation by a specific date, so November 5 should not be mistaken for the day marijuana will officially move to Schedule III.
Broader Marijuana Rescheduling Has Followed an Unusually Long Path
The current proceeding traces back to a 2023 Department of Health and Human Services recommendation concluding that marijuana has a currently accepted medical use and should be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III. The Department of Justice formally proposed the change in May 2024, beginning an administrative rulemaking process that quickly became the focus of intense political, scientific and legal debate.
Earlier hearing proceedings became stalled by procedural disputes. In April 2026, the Justice Department terminated the previous hearing structure and launched a new expedited process. Formal hearings finally took place from June 29 through July 15, during which the government defended the proposed Schedule III designation against designated participants opposing the change.
The summer hearing examined marijuana’s medical use, abuse potential, safety, public-health consequences and the legal standards governing scheduling. Post-hearing arguments followed before the September GAO report created another procedural detour. Julius’s latest order appears designed to address that new evidence without allowing the proceeding to begin again from the beginning.
Medical Marijuana Has Already Received Separate Schedule III Treatment
The current hearing concerns broader marijuana rescheduling and should not be confused with a separate federal action completed earlier in 2026. In April, the Justice Department placed FDA-approved marijuana medicines and marijuana products covered by qualifying state medical marijuana licenses into Schedule III.
Other forms of marijuana remain federally classified under Schedule I while the broader rulemaking continues. The distinction has created an unusual temporary federal framework in which certain state-regulated medical marijuana activity receives Schedule III treatment while recreational marijuana and other cannabis falling outside the qualifying medical framework remain subject to Schedule I rules.
The ongoing proceeding is intended to determine whether that broader category of marijuana should also move to Schedule III. A final decision in favor of rescheduling would therefore expand the federal change far beyond the medical products already covered by the April action.
Schedule III Would Be Historic but Would Not Legalize Marijuana
Moving marijuana to Schedule III would represent the largest federal cannabis policy change since the Controlled Substances Act was enacted more than half a century ago. Schedule I is reserved for substances considered to have no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule III applies to substances considered to have accepted medical uses and a lower potential for abuse than Schedule I and Schedule II drugs.
Rescheduling would formally recognize marijuana’s medical use across federal law and would substantially change the regulatory environment surrounding research, taxation and controlled-substance compliance. It could make certain areas of marijuana research easier and would remove the central premise behind treating cannabis as a substance with no accepted medical application.
Schedule III would not, however, amount to federal legalization. Marijuana would remain a controlled substance, and the Controlled Substances Act would continue regulating its manufacture, distribution and possession. State recreational cannabis programs would not automatically become federally legal simply because marijuana moved to a lower schedule.
Cannabis Businesses Are Watching the Process Closely Because of Federal Taxes
One of the largest economic implications involves Internal Revenue Code Section 280E. The provision prevents businesses trafficking in Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substances from deducting ordinary business expenses when calculating federal taxable income. Cannabis companies operating legally under state law have therefore faced federal tax burdens that ordinary retailers do not.
If broader marijuana is ultimately moved to Schedule III, businesses handling cannabis covered by the new classification would generally fall outside the specific Schedule I and Schedule II language of Section 280E. That could significantly change the economics of the legal cannabis industry by allowing deductions for expenses such as payroll, rent, marketing and administrative costs.
Federal tax authorities would still need to address implementation questions, particularly because the marijuana industry operates across complicated combinations of medical and recreational markets. Nonetheless, Section 280E is one reason investors and cannabis operators are monitoring procedural developments that might otherwise appear to involve obscure administrative law.
The Judge’s Recommendation Will Not Be the Final Word
Even after Julius completes his analysis, he does not have the authority to unilaterally reschedule marijuana. His eventual recommended decision will go to the DEA Administrator, who holds final administrative authority over the rulemaking process subject to the applicable federal statutes and the scientific findings that bind portions of the scheduling analysis.
The Administrator will review the administrative record, including testimony, documentary evidence, post-hearing briefs, the newly admitted GAO report and the judge’s recommendation. A final agency decision can then be issued through the federal rulemaking process. Parties dissatisfied with the outcome may also pursue judicial review, creating the possibility that litigation continues even after DEA acts.
That means the marijuana scheduling debate is not guaranteed to end immediately after November 5 or after Julius issues his recommendation. What the latest ruling does accomplish is removal of one potentially major source of delay: a reopened evidentiary hearing.
DEA’s Burden of Proof Remains Central
Julius emphasized in his order that the federal government continues to bear the burden of proving the proposed Schedule III classification. Rescheduling opponents argued that unanswered questions leave the record insufficient in important areas. The judge responded that such arguments may be relevant when he decides whether the government actually satisfied its burden, but they do not establish a right to restart the hearing.
That distinction could ultimately matter more than the procedural ruling itself. Rejecting additional testimony is not the same as endorsing Schedule III. Julius has not announced how he will weigh the existing scientific record, HHS’s analysis or the competing testimony presented during the summer hearing.
His order simply establishes that the case will be decided on the extensive record already assembled, supplemented by the GAO report and limited briefing regarding its significance. Both supporters and opponents of rescheduling will therefore have to win on the evidence already before the tribunal rather than attempting to build a new case after the hearing has closed.
November 5 Could Finally Move the Case Toward a Recommendation
After years of federal review, competing scientific claims and repeated procedural delays, the marijuana rescheduling proceeding appears to be approaching one of its most important transitions. The October 22 ruling prevents another round of witnesses and discovery while still allowing opponents to argue that the GAO’s findings expose weaknesses serious enough to affect the federal government’s case.
The next several weeks will determine whether the GAO report becomes a meaningful obstacle or little more than an administrative footnote. The report unquestionably found that DEA and FDA should improve their written scheduling procedures, but it also found that DEA consistently considered required HHS recommendations and followed them in every completed scheduling action examined between 2020 and 2025.
Once the final replies arrive on November 5, the stay ends automatically and the proceeding can again move toward a recommended decision. Marijuana will not automatically become Schedule III that day, but one of the final procedural barriers standing between the summer hearing and the judge’s recommendation will have been removed. For a federal cannabis reform process that has repeatedly been delayed, that alone makes November 5 one of the most important dates remaining on the calendar.
