DEA and DOJ Marijuana Rescheduling Controversy Grows After Watchdog Finds Missing Policies, Hearing Reversal and Questions About Fairness
Thousands of mom and pop businesses have been worried for years over the federal government’s action on legalizing cannabis. It is somewhat like a vintage cartoon and now, the DEA’s marijuana rescheduling process faces new scrutiny AGAIN. The federal government’s effort to reschedule marijuana has been derailed by another procedural fight, raising fresh questions about the Drug Enforcement Administration’s handling of a decision with major consequences for the cannabis industry.
On Oct. 22, DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek C. Julius rejected a request to reopen the marijuana rescheduling hearing for additional testimony and document discovery. But he allowed participants to submit written arguments about a new Government Accountability Office report examining how federal agencies evaluate controlled substances. The decision keeps the process moving, but leaves unresolved questions about the government’s procedures and the fairness of the proceedings.
RELATED: Cannabis Becomes America’s New Daily Health Habit
The watchdog report found the DEA lacked written policies clearly defining staff roles and procedures for scheduling controlled substances. The Food and Drug Administration also lacked comprehensive written policies for conducting evaluations and developing scheduling recommendations.
Those findings do not necessarily prove officials manipulated the marijuana review or its scientific conclusions are wrong. But they raise a legitimate question: How transparent and consistent can a federal decision-making process be when the agencies responsible for it lack comprehensive written procedures?
The report has become another flashpoint in a process already marked by reversals, litigation and allegations of improper communications.
In May 2024, the Justice Department proposed moving marijuana from Schedule I, the most restrictive category under federal drug law, to Schedule III, which recognizes accepted medical uses and carries fewer restrictions. The change could ease a major federal tax burden on cannabis businesses, but it would not legalize recreational marijuana nationwide.
The process has since taken a winding path. In April 2026, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche withdrew the original hearing proceedings and ordered a replacement, saying the move would provide a more expeditious route to a decision. The new hearing ran from June 29 through July 15.
The restart followed earlier disputes over alleged improper communications involving DEA personnel. Some participants who supported rescheduling sought to remove the agency as the government’s proponent, arguing communications outside the formal process compromised the proceedings. Those allegations contributed to procedural disputes, but they were not established as proven misconduct through factual findings.
Now, the GAO report has opened another front.
Three opponents of rescheduling sought additional testimony and document discovery, arguing the watchdog’s findings warranted closer scrutiny of how the government developed its medical-use test, assessed marijuana’s abuse potential and prepared its recommendation.
Julius declined to reopen the evidentiary record, pointing to the substantial volume of material already submitted, including more than 2,500 pages of witness testimony and thousands of pages of documents. Instead, he will allow limited written arguments on the report.
The DEA has argued the GAO identified weaknesses in documenting agency procedures, not flaws in the scientific assessment underlying the rescheduling proposal. The watchdog also found the DEA’s final decisions in the scheduling cases it examined from 2020 through 2025 aligned with the recommendations it received from the Department of Health and Human Services. The finding complicates any claim the report itself proves the marijuana review was improperly conducted.
Still, the absence of clear written procedures is not a trivial administrative detail. Drug scheduling affects medical research, criminal enforcement and businesses operating in a multibillion-dollar market. The public has a legitimate interest in knowing how evidence is evaluated and how officials reach decisions.
RELATED: What If Workers’ Compensation Covered Medical Marijuana
The latest order sets Oct. 29 as the deadline for supplemental briefs and Nov. 5 for replies. Those dates mark the next procedural steps, not a guaranteed decision date.
For cannabis businesses, the stakes remain substantial. Moving marijuana to Schedule III could remove the federal tax restrictions imposed by Internal Revenue Code Section 280E on businesses trafficking in Schedule I or II substances. But it would not automatically make state-licensed recreational sales legal under federal law.
The judge’s refusal to reopen the hearing may prevent another round of testimony and discovery, but it does little to quiet the larger debate. After a hearing reset, allegations of improper communications and a watchdog report identifying gaps in agency procedures, federal officials still must deliver a decision which can withstand scrutiny.
For an industry which has waited years for federal reform, the next deadline is approaching. Certainty, however, remains elusive.
