Key Takeaways
- DEA Judge Julius denied the request to reopen the marijuana rescheduling hearing for new evidence, but accepted a GAO report into the record.
- Opponents can submit briefs regarding the GAO report but will not get new witness testimony or document discovery.
- The GAO report questioned DEA’s evaluation procedures but did not oppose marijuana rescheduling itself.
- By November 5, briefs must address the weight of the GAO report in relation to the rescheduling proposal.
- The case remains paused for now, but will proceed after the November 5 reply deadline, without further delays.
Marijuana rescheduling opponents wanted a do-over. They didn’t get one.
On Thursday, DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius rejected a request from cannabis rescheduling opponents to reopen the ongoing hearing for new testimony and document discovery, according Law 360. The group had hoped to extend the process with a fresh evidentiary round built around a newly published federal watchdog report. Julius said no to that request, but he left a narrower door open.
He granted the opponents’ separate motion to admit a Government Accountability Office report into the hearing record and agreed to let both sides submit written briefs about what that report should mean for the case. Initial briefs are due October 29. Replies follow on November 5. The matter stays stayed until that window closes.
For supporters of rescheduling, this is a clear win on the biggest question: the case does not have to restart. For opponents, it’s a smaller consolation prize. They get to argue about the GAO report on paper, but they don’t get new witnesses or new discovery to build their case around it.
What Did Rescheduling Opponents Actually Request?
The motion came from DUID Victim Voices, Kenneth Finn M.D., and the National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association, groups that participated in the June and July hearing as opponents of moving marijuana out of Schedule I. According to Vicente LLP’s analysis, they asked the judge to recommend that the DEA Administrator decline to adopt the proposed rule based on the current record, and to instead seek an updated evaluation from HHS under federal scheduling law.
Julius wasn’t convinced most of it belonged in the case. He wrote that some of what opponents wanted to explore was “immaterial for the narrow purpose of this hearing,” and that other points “could have been explored” already, during witness questioning back when the hearing was actually happening. DEA’s own brief had gone further, calling the request an “obvious fishing expedition” built on a report that was “clear on its face.”
Julius did say the opponents’ arguments tied to the GAO report were their “strongest” basis for reopening anything. That’s the one piece he acted on, and only partially.
Why the GAO Report Matters Now
The Government Accountability Office published its review on September 23, 2026. It found that DEA “does not have any policies or procedures regarding how its staff are to conduct evaluations or schedule substances,” and that FDA similarly lacks documented procedures for developing its scheduling recommendations. Opponents seized on those findings as evidence the whole rescheduling process might be shakier than it looks.
Here’s the context that often gets left out: the GAO report did not find that HHS’s marijuana evaluation itself was deficient. It did not recommend against rescheduling. GAO looked at DEA’s handling of 208 substances between 2020 and 2025 and found DEA considered HHS recommendations for all 95 substances where that was required, with final decisions matching HHS’s conclusions across all 84 substances that reached a published final rule. The gaps GAO flagged were about missing written policies, not about the substance of the marijuana recommendation itself.
Julius drew a similar line. He said the documentation gaps aren’t actually before his tribunal and that testimony on the subject “would only serve to confuse the matter.” His view: the report “speaks for itself,” so there’s no need for witnesses to explain it. What’s genuinely in dispute is how much weight it deserves and whether it should change anything about this specific rescheduling proposal.
What the Briefs on November 5 Need to Address
Julius laid out exactly what he wants from the parties, and nothing more. Briefs must stick to two questions:
- How much weight, if any, the tribunal should give the GAO report.
- If it deserves weight, whether the documentation gaps GAO identified are serious enough to undermine the broader rescheduling process and this proposal specifically.
He added that “requests for further briefing on these issues beyond the replies allowed above are disfavored.” Translation: this isn’t going to turn into an extended back-and-forth. Interestingly, Julius noted that DEA and the opponents “appear closer aligned in their understanding of the GAO Report than their postures may indicate.” The real disagreement isn’t about what the report says. It’s about what it should do to this case.
Once the November 5 replies land, the stay lifts “by its own terms,” and Julius can get back to writing his recommendation.
What This Means for Rescheduling’s Timeline
This isn’t the ending. It’s a pause with a fixed expiration date. Julius’s eventual recommendation to the DEA Administrator is nonbinding, one step among several before any final rule takes effect. Exceptions from the parties, Administrator review, and a final rule all still lie ahead, with potential appellate review after that.
It’s worth separating this hearing from the policy change that already exists. Back in April 2026, Attorney General Todd Blanche signed an order immediately reclassifying state-licensed medical cannabis and FDA-approved marijuana products from Schedule I to Schedule III. That reclassification stands on its own and isn’t touched by this stay. The current hearing concerns a more comprehensive move of marijuana itself to Schedule III, a separate and larger question.
DEA’s own final brief, filed before this ruling, argued 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 agency pointed to HHS’s ten-month scientific review and noted that more than 30,000 practitioners currently treat over six million patients across 43 U.S. jurisdictions under medical marijuana laws. DEA asked the judge to “expeditiously recommend” the Schedule III transfer.
Worth remembering too: supporters of rescheduling weren’t invited to participate in this hearing at all. DEA designated only opponents as official participants, arguing supporters didn’t meet the legal definition of an “interested person.” Reform advocates held a press conference outside DEA headquarters calling the process closed off, and the hearing wasn’t livestreamed despite calls from a member of Congress and several news outlets.
What Happens After November 5th?
Assuming no further briefing gets approved, the stay ends once replies are filed on November 5. Julius then moves toward drafting his nonbinding recommendation based on the hearing record, the GAO report, and whatever weight he assigns it in the new briefs. From there, the case heads to the DEA Administrator for review.
Nothing here stops the process. It narrows it. The reopening request that could have added weeks or months of new testimony and discovery didn’t happen. What’s left is a tighter, time-boxed argument over one report’s significance, due in under two weeks.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius denied the request to reopen the hearing for new testimony and document discovery. He did grant a related motion to admit the GAO report into the record and allowed limited briefing about it.
It’s a September 23, 2026 Government Accountability Office review finding that DEA and FDA lack documented policies and procedures for evaluating and scheduling controlled substances. The GAO did not find HHS’s marijuana evaluation deficient and did not recommend against rescheduling.
Initial briefs on the GAO report are due October 29, 2026. Reply briefs are due November 5, 2026. The hearing remains stayed until that briefing period closes.
No. That order, which reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis and FDA-approved marijuana products from Schedule I to Schedule III, is separate from this hearing and is not altered by the current stay.
The judge’s recommendation is nonbinding. After it’s issued, parties can file exceptions, the DEA Administrator reviews the record, and a final rule follows, with the possibility of appellate review afterward.
