The legal fight over the Trump administration’s marijuana reclassification could continue well into 2027, after federal officials and opponents jointly proposed a timetable for the case.
Their October 9 filing asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to set deadlines for written arguments extending into February. Both sides want oral arguments scheduled soon afterward, potentially before the court’s summer recess.
The filing moves the litigation toward its next stage, but the proposed dates still require the court’s approval.
The proposed court schedule
The parties have requested the following deadlines:
The proposal sets no date for a ruling. It also does not establish when DEA must finish the separate administrative process considering broader marijuana rescheduling.
The legal challenge remains unresolved
The litigation combines three challenges brought by marijuana reform opponents, a cannabis-focused pharmaceutical company and state officials.
Those involved include Smart Approaches to Marijuana, the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association, and MMJ International Holdings and its subsidiaries. Indiana and Nebraska also challenged the reform; Louisiana initially joined that case before withdrawing.
The appeals court has already rejected an attempt to freeze rescheduling while it reviews the lawsuits. On September 9, it ruled that the parties seeking a stay had failed to meet the demanding requirements for that relief.
That decision left the underlying challenges unresolved. It did not settle whether the administration’s action would survive judicial review.
The court also declined to let two medical cannabis companies join the case as formal parties, finding that existing parties adequately represented their interests. It permitted them to submit amicus briefs, which allow outside parties to offer arguments for the court to consider.
Medical rescheduling and broader reform follow separate tracks
The dispute sits alongside a federal reform process with two distinct parts.
In April, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued an order placing FDA-approved marijuana products and marijuana covered by qualifying state medical licenses in Schedule III. The Justice Department linked that action to President Donald Trump’s December 2025 executive order directing officials to accelerate cannabis reform.
At the same time, the administration launched a new DEA hearing to consider transferring marijuana more broadly from Schedule I to Schedule III.
The distinction is important for following the case. The medical order covers specified categories, while the broader proceeding concerns marijuana’s classification beyond that limited action.
A separate DEA proceeding is paused
The broader administrative case has encountered its own delay.
Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius issued a September 29 order pausing proceedings while he considers whether a newly released Government Accountability Office report should be admitted into the hearing record.
The motion came from the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association, DUID Victim Voices and physician Kenneth Finn. They requested permission to add the report and submit further arguments about its relevance.
Julius ordered the government to respond by October 13. Other participating parties may also respond by that deadline.
This pause belongs to the DEA proceeding. It is separate from the appeals court’s September rejection of a request to halt rescheduling during judicial review.
The watchdog report, published September 23, identified gaps in DEA and FDA policies for evaluating and scheduling substances. GAO recommended clearer procedures and an updated agreement governing consultation with the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Its findings also included an important qualification: DEA’s final scheduling decisions matched HHS recommendations for all 84 substances in the reviewed period that had reached a final rule.
The agencies agreed with GAO’s recommendations. The report called for improvements to their processes; it did not itself issue a marijuana scheduling decision.
Medical evidence remains central to the dispute
In its August post-hearing brief, DEA argued that marijuana no longer meets the requirements for Schedule I because it has an accepted medical use and can be used safely under medical supervision.
The agency relied on the Department of Health and Human Services’ scientific and medical evaluation. It also argued that marijuana’s abuse and dependence profile fits Schedule III more closely than the stricter categories.
Opponents challenged both the evidence and the standards used to evaluate it. Smart Approaches to Marijuana and participating states argued that officials had departed from earlier agency practice when assessing accepted medical use. Drug-testing representatives raised concerns about workplace and transportation safety.
These are arguments from the parties, rather than findings from a final ruling. In the administrative case, the judge’s role is to make a recommendation; the ultimate scheduling decision rests with the DEA administrator.
Why growers and cannabis businesses are watching
The stakes include how medical cultivation and distribution are regulated, along with the federal tax treatment of qualifying businesses.
The April order addresses Section 280E, which prevents businesses trafficking in Schedule I or II substances from deducting many ordinary expenses. The order states that covered state medical licensees would no longer face that restriction, although it does not resolve individual businesses’ federal tax liabilities.
The rule also establishes federal registration requirements for qualifying medical operators and retains controls on handling, imports and exports.
For home growers, the medical order creates no nationwide permission to cultivate. Marijuana outside its covered categories remains in Schedule I, and the order does not authorize recreational cultivation or sales.
The next developments to watch are the appeals court’s response to the proposed timetable and the DEA judge’s decision on whether to reopen the administrative hearing record.
Their October 9 filing asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to set deadlines for written arguments extending into February. Both sides want oral arguments scheduled soon afterward, potentially before the court’s summer recess.
The filing moves the litigation toward its next stage, but the proposed dates still require the court’s approval.
The proposed court schedule
The parties have requested the following deadlines:
- November 24, 2026: Challengers submit their opening brief.
- December 1, 2026: Supporting amicus briefs for the challengers are due.
- January 13, 2027: The government submits its response.
- January 20, 2027: Supporting amicus briefs for the government are due.
- February 5, 2027: Challengers submit their reply.
- February 12, 2027: The joint appendix of case materials is due.
- February 19, 2027: Final briefs are due.
The proposal sets no date for a ruling. It also does not establish when DEA must finish the separate administrative process considering broader marijuana rescheduling.
The legal challenge remains unresolved
The litigation combines three challenges brought by marijuana reform opponents, a cannabis-focused pharmaceutical company and state officials.
Those involved include Smart Approaches to Marijuana, the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association, and MMJ International Holdings and its subsidiaries. Indiana and Nebraska also challenged the reform; Louisiana initially joined that case before withdrawing.
The appeals court has already rejected an attempt to freeze rescheduling while it reviews the lawsuits. On September 9, it ruled that the parties seeking a stay had failed to meet the demanding requirements for that relief.
That decision left the underlying challenges unresolved. It did not settle whether the administration’s action would survive judicial review.
The court also declined to let two medical cannabis companies join the case as formal parties, finding that existing parties adequately represented their interests. It permitted them to submit amicus briefs, which allow outside parties to offer arguments for the court to consider.
Medical rescheduling and broader reform follow separate tracks
The dispute sits alongside a federal reform process with two distinct parts.
In April, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued an order placing FDA-approved marijuana products and marijuana covered by qualifying state medical licenses in Schedule III. The Justice Department linked that action to President Donald Trump’s December 2025 executive order directing officials to accelerate cannabis reform.
At the same time, the administration launched a new DEA hearing to consider transferring marijuana more broadly from Schedule I to Schedule III.
The distinction is important for following the case. The medical order covers specified categories, while the broader proceeding concerns marijuana’s classification beyond that limited action.
A separate DEA proceeding is paused
The broader administrative case has encountered its own delay.
Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius issued a September 29 order pausing proceedings while he considers whether a newly released Government Accountability Office report should be admitted into the hearing record.
The motion came from the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association, DUID Victim Voices and physician Kenneth Finn. They requested permission to add the report and submit further arguments about its relevance.
Julius ordered the government to respond by October 13. Other participating parties may also respond by that deadline.
This pause belongs to the DEA proceeding. It is separate from the appeals court’s September rejection of a request to halt rescheduling during judicial review.
The watchdog report, published September 23, identified gaps in DEA and FDA policies for evaluating and scheduling substances. GAO recommended clearer procedures and an updated agreement governing consultation with the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Its findings also included an important qualification: DEA’s final scheduling decisions matched HHS recommendations for all 84 substances in the reviewed period that had reached a final rule.
The agencies agreed with GAO’s recommendations. The report called for improvements to their processes; it did not itself issue a marijuana scheduling decision.
Medical evidence remains central to the dispute
In its August post-hearing brief, DEA argued that marijuana no longer meets the requirements for Schedule I because it has an accepted medical use and can be used safely under medical supervision.
The agency relied on the Department of Health and Human Services’ scientific and medical evaluation. It also argued that marijuana’s abuse and dependence profile fits Schedule III more closely than the stricter categories.
Opponents challenged both the evidence and the standards used to evaluate it. Smart Approaches to Marijuana and participating states argued that officials had departed from earlier agency practice when assessing accepted medical use. Drug-testing representatives raised concerns about workplace and transportation safety.
These are arguments from the parties, rather than findings from a final ruling. In the administrative case, the judge’s role is to make a recommendation; the ultimate scheduling decision rests with the DEA administrator.
Why growers and cannabis businesses are watching
The stakes include how medical cultivation and distribution are regulated, along with the federal tax treatment of qualifying businesses.
The April order addresses Section 280E, which prevents businesses trafficking in Schedule I or II substances from deducting many ordinary expenses. The order states that covered state medical licensees would no longer face that restriction, although it does not resolve individual businesses’ federal tax liabilities.
The rule also establishes federal registration requirements for qualifying medical operators and retains controls on handling, imports and exports.
For home growers, the medical order creates no nationwide permission to cultivate. Marijuana outside its covered categories remains in Schedule I, and the order does not authorize recreational cultivation or sales.
The next developments to watch are the appeals court’s response to the proposed timetable and the DEA judge’s decision on whether to reopen the administrative hearing record.
