The DEA Begins Hearings on the Federal Rescheduling of Cannabis

The hearings of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) American report on the federal reclassification of the Cannabis officially began on June 29.

These hearings, which will continue until July 15, must determine whether the agency should finalize the proposal to legalize cannabis, which is currently prohibited at the federal level, the’Schedule I to theSchedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

While these hearings represent another important step toward federal reform, they have also drawn criticism regarding their format. Organizations in favor of the reform were excluded from any direct participation; only opponents of the reclassification were granted the right to speak; and the debates are not being broadcast live despite repeated calls for greater transparency.

Although this process could ultimately reshape the legal landscape of the cannabis in the United States, we shouldn't expect any immediate changes, regardless of the outcome.

A hearing focused on Annex III

The current hearings stem from a proposal originally developed under the Biden administration and is now being pursued by the Trump administration following the Reclassification of medical cannabis at the federal level earlier this year.

The central question posed to Derek Julius, chief administrative law judge of the DEA, is clear: Should all cannabis currently classified under Schedule I be reclassified under Schedule III, a category reserved for substances recognized for their medical value but which also pose a risk of abuse?

However, this proceeding does not concern the legalization of recreational cannabis at the federal level. In opening the hearing on behalf of the government, the DEA’s attorney, James J. Schwartz, emphasized this distinction.

«The hearing is not about the recreational use of marijuana, but about its regulation—not its legalization.».

If adopted, the status granted under Schedule III would officially recognize that cannabis has medical uses under federal law. This would not remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act, nor would it legalize recreational cannabis use by adults nationwide.

The government defends the medical value of cannabis

Unlike in previous decades, the federal government is now advocating for the recognition of cannabis's therapeutic value.

Among the government's first witnesses was the Dr. Dominic Chiapperino, director of the team responsible for controlled substances at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). He explained the scientific analysis that led federal health authorities to recommend a Category III classification.

According to testimony presented at the hearing, the FDA compared cannabis to alcohol, opioids, and other controlled substances when assessing its risks.

Federal officials have concluded that cannabis generally presents fewer risks in everyday life than these substances. They also found that overdose deaths directly attributable to cannabis are extremely rare compared to those caused by opioids, and that withdrawal symptoms are generally less severe than those associated with alcohol.

The government's second witness, Dr. Corey Burchman, is expected to share his experience using the Medical cannabis in pain management, particularly in cases where patients have been weaned off opioid treatments.

According to documents filed by the DEA prior to the hearing, his testimony will focus on the Medical Benefits of Cannabis for Chronic Pain as well as its comparatively lower risks of overdose and withdrawal.

Only opponents are allowed to challenge the proposal

One of the strangest aspects of this hearing is its structure. Since the DEA itself proposed this regulatory change, the government is automatically considered the sponsor of the reclassification. Under administrative law, only parties claiming that the proposal would harm them were granted the right to participate.

As a result, only organizations opposed to cannabis reform present their arguments before the judge.

Among the selected participants are representatives from several U.S. states, business organizations, and prominent advocates for prohibition, such as Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), which has already challenged the reclassification in court.

Supporters of the reform, including NORML, the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA), the Drug Policy Alliance, Students for Sensible Drug Policy and several medical organizations were denied the opportunity to testify directly.

This decision has, of course, drawn criticism from much of the cannabis industry. Ryan Hunter, director of revenue at cannabis manufacturer Spherex, called the process unbalanced.

«Although this is standard practice for DEA hearings, it does not seem balanced, and we are concerned that important perspectives and data may not be given sufficient consideration in the process.»

Others, however, argue that limiting testimony could actually speed up the process, since the scientific evidence supporting reclassification has already been examined in detail by federal agencies.

Political accusations surfaced from day one

The first day of hearings also saw political tensions resurface. Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, stated that the Trump administration's support for the reclassification was motivated by political rather than scientific considerations.

Speaking during a break in the debates, he stated that the federal government’s position had changed due to campaign contributions made by prominent figures in the cannabis industry.

«Because of donations from people like Kim Rivers, who contributed to MAHA’s nomination committees and PACs, etc.—solely for that reason—the government now finds itself in the extremely delicate position of having to defend the opposite of what it has defended for the past 50 years.»

This allegation refers in particular to Kim Rivers, CEO of Trulieve, who was present when President Donald Trump signed the executive order directing the Department of Justice to carry out the reclassification process.

Despite these accusations, the hearings themselves remain focused on scientific, medical, and regulatory issues rather than political considerations.

Activists are protesting outside the DEA headquarters

As testimony continued in the courtroom, dozens of cannabis advocates gathered in front of the DEA headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Organizations, including Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), have described this process as fundamentally flawed, arguing that reclassifying cannabis as a Schedule III substance does not end the federal ban.

The Executive Director Kat Murti urged lawmakers to aim instead for full declassification.

«This hearing is a remarkable moment. Changing a single number in the Controlled Substances Act does not free a single person from prison. It does not expunge criminal records. It does not prevent arrests… And it does not end the federal ban.»

Several advocacy groups have also criticized the DEA's refusal to broadcast the hearings live.

Unlike previous hearings held under the Biden administration, the current proceedings are open only to those present in person, despite requests from advocacy groups, journalists, and members of Congress.

The judge's recommendation is just one step

Despite the importance of these hearings, their outcome will not immediately determine federal cannabis policy. Judge Julius is expected to issue a recommendation after the testimony is concluded, on July 15, but it is not subject to no statutory deadline to do so.

More importantly, his recommendation is not not binding. The Ministry of Justice and the DEA may choose to adopt it, modify it, or reject it entirely.

The judge could recommend reclassifying cannabis as a Schedule III substance, keeping it as a Schedule I substance, or even placing it in the Category II, a classification that, according to many industry observers, would create additional regulatory complications.

Even after a final rule is issued, new lawsuits seem almost inevitable.

The previous attempt at reclassification launched under the Biden administration failed due to legal disputes regarding the selection of witnesses and procedural fairness. Several lawsuits challenging the current procedure are already pending in federal court.

A limited impact in the short term

If cannabis were ultimately reclassified as a Schedule III substance, this decision would have significant implications for the regulated sector.

Among the most anticipated changes includes the elimination of the’Section 280E of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, which will allow state-licensed cannabis businesses to deduct their ordinary business expenses from their federal taxes.

However, some questions remain unanswered. Regulators have yet to clarify how recreational cannabis operators would interact with the DEA under a Schedule III classification, while federal agencies continue to develop guidelines regarding taxation, interstate commerce, and international trade.

Implementation is therefore expected to take a considerable amount of time. As explained by Riana Durrett, director of the Cannabis Policy Institute at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said ahead of the hearings that this process should not be viewed as an immediate turning point for the industry.

Even if the federal government ultimately classifies all cannabis under Schedule III, a massive regulatory effort and likely years of litigation still lie ahead before businesses fully feel the tangible effects of the reform.