cannabis rescheduling hearing begins June 29, 2026, when the Drug Enforcement Administration will hold an administrative law proceeding to review a proposed rule to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act.
The DEA announced on June 18 that it designated seven “interested persons” to participate in the expedited hearing. All seven oppose loosening federal restrictions on cannabis. They are: 1) National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA); 2) Tennessee Bureau of Investigation; 3) Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM); 4) the states of Nebraska, Idaho, Indiana and Louisiana (listed collectively); 5) DUID Victim Voices; 6) Kenneth Finn, M.D.; and 7) Phillip A. Drum, Pharm.D.
The selection contrasts with the prior Biden-era administrative process, when the DEA had identified 25 participants that included some pro-rescheduling groups. Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche issued an April 22, 2026 order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis and FDA-approved cannabis products from Schedule I to Schedule III. Blanche also set a separate rulemaking to consider rescheduling all remaining cannabis in line with President Donald Trump’s December 2025 executive order to complete the process “in the most expeditious manner.” The Trump-era DEA withdrew the previous judge’s docket and opened the new, faster hearing slated to run from June 29 and conclude no later than July 15, 2026.
Administrative law judge Derek C. Julius will preside. Julius served from 2022 to 2024 as the DEA’s foreign section chief in the Office of Chief Counsel and worked as a senior attorney in diversion and regulatory policy. He holds a Master of Studies in international human rights law from the University of Oxford (2021) and has experience in immigration litigation.
Julius clarified the hearing’s narrow scope in a June 18 preliminary order: evidence and testimony about the April 22 reclassification of FDA-approved cannabis products and state-regulated medical cannabis are out of scope because Blanche’s order already changed those schedules (see 91 Fed. Reg. 22,714 (2026)). The sole question for this hearing is whether the remainder of marijuana, as defined in the CSA, should move from Schedule I to Schedule III.
The DEA identified the government as the proponent of the proposed rule and assigned it the burden of proof for demonstrating why the change should occur. Despite that, the DEA-selected interested parties are uniformly opposed to rescheduling. Each designated party may make a 15-minute opening statement. They may present either two witnesses for up to two hours each, or one witness for up to four hours. Each interested party will have up to one hour to cross-examine each government witness. Interested parties will not cross-examine witnesses presented by other interested parties. The judge ordered written prehearing statements of up to 25 pages to be filed by June 24; those statements must list witness names and summarize anticipated testimony.
Some pro-rescheduling organizations had filed timely notices to participate but were not selected. The American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp (ATACH) — which filed a written notice and works through the Coalition for Cannabis Scheduling Reform (CCSR) — publicly criticized the roster as excluding rescheduling supporters. ATACH President Michael Bronstein said the decision prevents the hearing from hearing scientific and medical testimony from rescheduling advocates. ATACH said it will continue to press for reclassification through advocacy and legal channels.
Several of the selected parties are already litigating Blanche’s April 22 order. Kenneth Finn, an Arizona pain medicine physician, NDASA, SAM and the states of Nebraska and Indiana filed lawsuits in May seeking to block or reverse Blanche’s action. Those lawsuits argue the April 22 reclassification exceeded administrative authority or failed to follow required procedures.
Procedural details increase the hearing’s time pressure. The short window — roughly two weeks — limits how many witnesses and how much documentary material can be introduced. The DEA could, however, call pro-rescheduling experts as government witnesses; the judge’s orders allow the government to present its own testimony to support the proposed rule.
Key dates and numbers for stakeholders: – June 18, 2026: DEA announced selected interested persons and named ALJ Derek C. Julius. – June 24, 2026: deadline for 25-page prehearing statements listing witnesses and summaries. – June 29, 2026: hearing start date. – July 15, 2026: deadline to conclude the hearing.
The hearing will determine whether the remainder of cannabis meets statutory criteria for Schedule III placement, including accepted medical use and abuse potential relative to Schedules I and II. The Department of Health and Human Services previously found cannabis has an accepted medical use and lower abuse potential than many Schedule I or II substances, and that determination remains part of the administrative record the DEA will consider.
Expect litigation and agency filings to continue after the hearing. Interested parties already in court may press parallel challenges, and excluded pro-rescheduling groups may seek other legal avenues to present scientific testimony or challenge the selection process. The DEA’s expedited timeline and the selection of only opposing parties narrow the forum for rescheduling advocates to present direct testimony, though the government retains the option to call supporting witnesses within its case.
