Key Takeaways
- The DEA marijuana rescheduling hearing will feature only opponents of cannabis reform, raising concerns about fairness.
- Seven selected participants, all against reform, include various law enforcement and anti-marijuana organizations.
- NORML and other reform groups were excluded based on a narrow definition of ‘interested persons’ by the DEA.
- The hearing is critical for shaping federal cannabis policy and is set to run from June 29 to July 15, 2026.
- Ongoing lawsuits and congressional actions add uncertainty to the rescheduling process, further isolating the cannabis community.
The DEA selected seven participants for its June 29th marijuana rescheduling hearing, and every single one opposes cannabis reform. Groups like NORML, the Drug Policy Alliance, and the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp were all rejected. The DEA’s reasoning: supporters of rescheduling cannot be “adversely affected” by a rule they support, so they don’t qualify as “interested persons” under federal law.
The DEA made its list public on June 18th. Seven participants. All opponents of marijuana reform. Zero advocates. That’s the setup for a hearing that could determine the federal scheduling status of cannabis for millions of Americans.
This isn’t a technicality. It’s a pattern, and it raises a question that the cannabis community has every right to ask: how does a federal agency hold a fair, complete hearing on cannabis policy without hearing from a single person who supports the reform being considered?
The answer, according to the DEA, is that it doesn’t need to. And that should concern every cannabis consumer, patient, small business owner, and advocate in the country.
What Is the DEA Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing?
On April 28th, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a notice of hearing concerning the proposed rulemaking to transfer marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This followed President Trump’s executive order directing the DOJ to expedite the rescheduling process for medical marijuana.
The hearing is scheduled to begin June 29, 2026, at the DEA Hearing Facility in Arlington, Virginia, and must conclude no later than July 15, 2026. A DEA administrative law judge (ALJ) will oversee the proceedings.
Separately, the Trump administration had already issued a final rule in April placing both FDA-approved marijuana products and state-licensed medical cannabis products into Schedule III. The upcoming hearing goes further, considering whether all marijuana products, including those used in adult-use markets, should be reclassified.
In short, the stakes are high. The hearing could shape federal cannabis policy in ways that affect tens of millions of people across the country. So who did the DEA invite to speak?
Who Did the DEA Select for the Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing?
According to the official DEA website, the seven selected participants are:
- National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA)
- Tennessee Bureau of Investigation
- Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM)
- The States of Nebraska, Idaho, Indiana, and Louisiana
- DUID Victim Voices
- Kenneth Finn, MD
- Phillip A. Drum, PharmD
Every single one of them opposes marijuana reform. Several have filed lawsuits to block rescheduling entirely. SAM, led by Kevin Sabet, called rescheduling “the greatest drug policy mistake in a generation” and said it’s grateful to make its case at the hearing.
These are the only voices the DEA will hear. No patients. There were no consumers, industry representatives, or reform advocates present.
Why Were NORML, the Drug Policy Alliance, and Other Reform Groups Rejected?
The DEA’s reasoning comes down to the legal definition of an “interested person.” Under federal regulations (21 CFR 1300.01(b)), an interested person is defined as someone “adversely affected or aggrieved” by a proposed rule.
The DEA’s position is that if you support rescheduling, you can’t be harmed by rescheduling. Therefore, you’re not an interested person. Therefore, you don’t get a seat at the table.
According to Marijuana Moment, in a rejection letter that was sent to the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) on June 17th, DEA Administrator Terrance Cole wrote directly that the DPA had “not demonstrated you are adversely affected or aggrieved” by the proposed rule. Because DPA supports moving marijuana out of Schedule I, the DEA concluded it has no standing to participate.
Cat Packer, DPA’s director of drug markets and legal regulation, pushed back hard after receiving the rejection.
“More than 70 percent of public comments submitted on the proposed rule supported decriminalization, yet many of the patients, consumers, families, small businesses and individuals who have borne the consequences of prohibition have been excluded from meaningful participation in these proceedings,” Packer said. “The people who have carried the burden of marijuana prohibition deserve more than a seat at the table.”
NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, filed its Notice of Intention to Participate back in May, and made a compelling case for inclusion. The organization, which has represented adult cannabis consumers for more than 50 years, argued that the hearing record would be fundamentally incomplete without the perspective of the people most directly affected by federal cannabis scheduling.
NORML was rejected. Just like last time. NORML also filed to participate in the Biden-era hearings and was not selected then either.
Is the DEA Stacking the Deck Against Cannabis Reform?
That’s the question the cannabis community is asking, loudly.
Michael Bronstein, president of the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp (ATACH), didn’t mince words after ATACH’s rejection.
“The upcoming rescheduling hearing will now strictly include prohibitionist parties that oppose President Trump’s position on rescheduling,” Bronstein said. “It will now be solely up to the Drug Enforcement Administration to defend its rule.”
He added that the selected participants represent “a who’s who of prohibitionist voices who have little-to-no experience with the medical use of cannabis.”
That’s a pointed observation. The DEA is the agency that proposed the rescheduling rule. Every participant invited to the hearing opposes that rule. No one will be present to support it. That means it falls entirely to the DEA itself to defend the reform it put forward. Advocates who could have done that job were turned away.
The DEA has historically resisted cannabis reform. During the Biden administration, critics accused the agency of stalling the rescheduling process. The administration ultimately canceled the Biden-era hearings following litigation over alleged improper communications and witness selection. This is the second attempt at conducting these hearings, and the agency has locked out the reform community again.
What Has the Rescheduling Move Already Changed?
Despite the controversy around the hearing, it’s worth acknowledging that the April rescheduling action has already produced results for some in the cannabis industry, mainly large MSOs who already dominated the market.
State-licensed medical cannabis businesses are no longer subject to IRS Section 280E, the tax code provision that barred cannabis companies from taking standard business deductions. That change alone has significant financial implications for operators across the country.
The ATF has posted a draft update to its gun purchase form acknowledging the federally legal status of medical marijuana, distinguishing between medical and recreational use for the first time. The DEA has also launched a registration process allowing state-legal marijuana businesses to take advantage of federal benefits tied to rescheduling.
But these gains are uneven and incomplete. Adult-use consumers remain in a legal gray zone. The two-tier system that treats medical and recreational cannabis differently under federal law creates ongoing uncertainty for businesses, consumers, and advocates alike.
What Comes Next for the DEA Marijuana Rescheduling Process?
The hearing begins June 29th, and the DEA has set a hard deadline of July 15 for its conclusion. The ALJ overseeing the proceedings has authority to call witnesses, issue subpoenas, admit or exclude evidence, and rule on procedural matters.
After the hearing concludes, the administrative process continues. The current rescheduling effort also faces several ongoing lawsuits, filed by state attorneys general, marijuana legalization opponents, and at least one cannabis-focused pharmaceutical company. Those cases have been consolidated in a federal appeals court.
A congressional committee also recently voted to block further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling, adding another layer of uncertainty to an already complicated process.
The road ahead is long, and the cannabis community’s exclusion from the formal hearing process means advocates will have to fight this battle through other channels, including the courts, legislative efforts, and public pressure.
The Hearing Record Will Be Incomplete. That’s the Point.
Let’s be direct about what’s happening here. The DEA has constructed a hearing where the only voices allowed are those that want to keep cannabis controlled or blocked from rescheduling altogether. The legal reasoning behind this is defensible on a narrow technical basis. But the practical effect is that a historic federal proceeding about cannabis policy will proceed without input from patients, consumers, industry representatives, or the advocacy organizations that have spent decades working on this issue.
NORML has represented cannabis consumers for over 50 years. The Drug Policy Alliance has been a leading voice on drug policy reform for decades. The government rejected these organizations, even though federal scheduling decisions directly shape their members’ lives. As a result, these members have no formal voice in the process.
More than 70 percent of the public comments on the proposed rescheduling rule supported decriminalization. The hearing roster doesn’t reflect that. Not even close.
The cannabis community has seen this before. Reform gets promised, the process moves forward, and somewhere along the way, the people most affected by prohibition get shut out of the room where the decisions get made. The June 29 hearing is looking like more of the same.
Frequently Asked Questions
The DEA will hold a formal administrative hearing to consider rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act. The hearing will begin on June 29, 2026, at the DEA Hearing Facility in Arlington, Virginia, and must conclude by July 15, 2026.
The DEA selected seven participants: the National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), the states of Nebraska, Idaho, Indiana, and Louisiana, DUID Victim Voices, Kenneth Finn MD, and Phillip A. Drum PharmD. All seven oppose marijuana reform.
The DEA applied its legal definition of an “interested person” strictly, excluding any group or individual that supports or does not oppose the proposed rescheduling rule.
Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III keeps it within the Controlled Substances Act framework but removes it from the most restrictive category. Descheduling removes marijuana from the CSA entirely.
After the hearing closes by July 15, 2026, the administrative process continues. The outcome will also be shaped by ongoing lawsuits filed by state attorneys general, cannabis opponents, and pharmaceutical interests, all of which have been consolidated in a federal appeals court. Congressional efforts to block rescheduling are also ongoing.
