cannabis rescheduling: Louisiana withdrew from official opposition to the Drug Enforcement Administration’s plan to reclassify marijuana and will not take part in DEA administrative hearings, a federal judge ordered June 25. The state filed a request to exit the proceedings; Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius granted the request the same day. The filing did not explain Louisiana’s reasons and the state’s withdrawal notice was not immediately available.
Background and parties involved
Louisiana was one of four states that the DEA had designated as “interested parties” authorized to contest the agency’s April final order that moved state-licensed medical marijuana products to Schedule 3 of the Controlled Substances Act. The other three state actors still listed to oppose the rescheduling are Idaho, Indiana and Nebraska; the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation also remains on record as an opponent.
At the time Louisiana joined the challenge, it was the only one of those four states with operational medical cannabis access. Nebraska, by contrast, has a voter-approved medical program but limited or no patient access yet. Idaho and Indiana maintain strict prohibitions on cannabis; both have cited public safety or federal consistency concerns in prior filings.
Concurrent D.C. Circuit litigation
Louisiana had already withdrawn from a separate federal court case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit — Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) v. Department of Justice — which challenged the same DEA final order. That earlier withdrawal also included no public explanation from Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill. Records show Indiana and Nebraska remain parties in the D.C. Circuit suit.
Regulatory impact for state-licensed operators
The DEA’s April final order moves certain state-licensed medical marijuana products from Schedule I to Schedule III. Under federal rules for controlled substances, Schedule III classification allows manufacturers and distributors to register with the DEA, permitting regulated production, distribution and research under federal oversight. The order specifically made state-licensed medical cannabis operators eligible to apply for DEA registration.
By withdrawing from the administrative hearing, Louisiana removes a formal state-level legal challenge to that federal change. Practically, this reduces the number of state opponents the DEA must address in the administrative record. Four state or state-affiliated challengers became three after Louisiana’s exit, lowering state-level pushback by 25% among the originally designated states.
What remains at issue
Opponents in remaining states have focused on statutory interpretation and public safety assertions, arguing the DEA exceeded its authority or that the reclassification could impede federal enforcement priorities. Supporters of the change — including medical cannabis businesses and some patient advocates — argue Schedule III status expands research access and creates a legal path for federal registration.
The administrative hearings scheduled to begin next week will include testimony and evidence from parties that maintained their opposition. The proceedings will inform the DEA’s administrative record and could affect subsequent litigation timelines, but the DEA retains final authority to implement or revise its order.
Why Louisiana matters
Louisiana’s exit matters because it was the only interested state with active patient access among the four original state challengers. Its withdrawal narrows the range of state arguments that emphasize real-world patient and industry impacts. The state’s earlier removal from the D.C. Circuit case reduced the number of state plaintiffs in that separate federal appeal by at least one, while Indiana and Nebraska continue to pursue legal avenues.
Next steps and timeline
– DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius granted Louisiana’s withdrawal on June 25. – Administrative hearings are scheduled to start next week; parties still listed as opponents will present their cases then. – The D.C. Circuit appeal (Smart Approaches to Marijuana v. DOJ) proceeds without Louisiana; Indiana and Nebraska remain listed plaintiffs.
Observers should expect the administrative record to reflect fewer state-level challenges after Louisiana’s withdrawal, but federal litigation and rulemaking processes could continue for months. State regulatory changes tied to the DEA order — such as DEA registration for state-licensed businesses — will depend on implementation steps that follow the administrative and judicial reviews.
