A pivotal moment in cannabis policy is unfolding as federal regulators make their final case for reclassifying marijuana from the nation's most restrictive drug category to a less restrictive one. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has formally urged the judge overseeing the federal marijuana rescheduling case to recommend moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), arguing that evidence presented during a three-week hearing demonstrates marijuana no longer meets the requirements for Schedule I status.

What Changed to Trigger This Federal Rescheduling Push?

The shift stems from a comprehensive scientific review conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2023, which concluded that marijuana has a currently accepted medical use in the United States for at least three conditions: chronic pain, anorexia associated with a medical condition, and nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy. This finding alone is significant because Schedule I drugs, by definition, must have no currently accepted medical use. The DEA noted in its brief that "marijuana no longer fits the statutory requirements for Schedule I because it has a currently accepted medical use within the United States and it has an accepted safety for its use under medical supervision".

The scale of state medical marijuana programs underscores this shift. According to the DEA's filing, more than 30,000 health care practitioners are now authorized to recommend marijuana to more than six million patients across 43 U.S. jurisdictions. This widespread medical practice contradicts the historical argument that marijuana lacks accepted safety when used under medical supervision.

How Does the New Two-Part Test Differ from the Old Standard?

A major dispute in the hearing centers on how the federal government determines whether a substance has a "currently accepted medical use," commonly referred to as CAMU. Opponents of rescheduling argue that marijuana fails the five-part test historically used by the DEA. However, in 2024, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) concluded that the old five-part test was "impermissibly narrow" because it effectively ignored widespread medical use occurring through state-regulated programs.

The newer two-part approach examines whether there is widespread current medical experience with the drug under state-authorized programs and whether there is credible scientific evidence supporting at least one of those medical uses. The OLC opinion concluded that this newer approach is legally sufficient even for a drug that has not received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and would not satisfy the older five-part test.

What Evidence Supports Moving Marijuana to Schedule III?

Beyond medical use, the DEA argues that marijuana's relative abuse potential and dependence risks are more consistent with Schedule III than Schedule I or II. The HHS analysis compared marijuana with substances including heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, oxycodone and other controlled drugs using data involving emergency room visits, hospitalizations, poison center reports, substance use disorders and overdose deaths.

The government's brief notes that even witnesses called by opponents acknowledged evidence of therapeutic benefits. For example, Dr. Kenneth Finn, a pain management physician, admitted that he previously recommended marijuana for his pain patients and currently believes there is likely a therapeutic benefit to marijuana. Dr. Bertha Madras, an addiction expert presented by the prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), testified that there is scientific evidence of marijuana's efficacy for neuropathic pain patients, although she believes the science is weak.

The DEA argues that marijuana produces low-to-moderate physical dependence, with withdrawal generally less severe than that associated with heroin and opioids. The government therefore says marijuana should remain federally controlled, but at Schedule III rather than Schedule I.

What Are the Main Arguments Against Rescheduling?

Opponents of rescheduling, including SAM and the states of Idaho, Indiana and Nebraska, argue that the government has failed to establish that marijuana has lower abuse potential than Schedule I and II substances, has a currently accepted medical use or meets Schedule III's standards concerning dependence. They contend that the two-part CAMU test was developed specifically for the marijuana review and represents an unjustified departure from decades of agency precedent.

The opposition also raises practical concerns about federal enforcement and workplace safety. The National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA), which represents members of the drug testing industry, expressed concerns that "if the transfer of marijuana to Schedule III is finalized, the authority of the Federal government to test for it will end". This would affect important safety and critical security personnel, including air traffic controllers, Secret Service agents, Federal employees with security clearances, airline pilots, truck drivers, and school bus drivers.

Steps the Judge Will Take to Reach a Decision

• Review Final Briefs: Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius received closing arguments and proposed findings of fact from all parties by August 17, 2026, following a hearing that ran from June 29 through July 15.
• Evaluate Scientific Evidence: The judge must weigh the HHS scientific review, testimony from medical experts and addiction specialists, and data on marijuana-related health outcomes compared to other controlled substances.
• Issue a Recommendation: The judge will issue a recommendation to either support or oppose the DEA's proposal to move marijuana to Schedule III, which will then inform the final decision-making process.

What Happens If Marijuana Is Rescheduled?

If the judge recommends rescheduling and the DEA ultimately moves marijuana to Schedule III, significant practical changes would follow. Georgia regulators, for example, are already proposing new rules that would allow medical marijuana to be delivered directly to patients, including via the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and private carriers like FedEx and UPS, under the assumption that rescheduling will be finalized. Andrew Turnage, executive director of the Georgia Access to Medical Cannabis Commission (GMCC), noted that such delivery options would be "really important" for patients in rural areas who currently must travel two hours or more to access medical cannabis.

The proposed Georgia delivery rules would require certified mail or equivalent tracking services, with delivery restricted to the patient, caregiver, or healthcare institution employee, and would establish secure protocols for dispensaries to ship cannabis to healthcare facilities like nursing homes. However, it remains unclear whether USPS, FedEx, UPS and other carriers will actually participate in such delivery, given the ongoing evolution of cannabis's legal status under federal law.

The judge's recommendation is expected to be a critical step in determining whether marijuana's federal classification changes, potentially reshaping how patients access medical cannabis across the country and how federal agencies regulate the substance.