By: Irina Dashevsky, Esq. and Nick Richards, Esq.
2026 saw the rescheduling of medical cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III. In that regard, this has been a productive year for the state-legal cannabis industry at the federal level. But was there more to be had in 2026? As we discussed in previous blogs, following this rescheduling, the federal government pushed to reschedule cannabis generally (including adult-use), with an expedited hearing schedule that commenced on June 29, 2026, and concluded on July 15, 2026. While no one knew when an order would be issued, Q-4 2026 was a reasonable expectation. Unfortunately, that timetable is likely more protracted now.
On September 29, 2026, the DEA’s Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an order staying the cannabis rescheduling proceedings pending consideration of a motion seeking to introduce a newly released Government Accountability Office (GAO) report into the administrative record. The report examined how the DEA and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including the FDA, conduct drug scheduling reviews. The report found that neither DEA nor FDA has comprehensive written policies governing how staff should conduct the statutory eight-factor analysis used in scheduling determinations. Most notably, GAO concluded that FDA lacks written criteria for determining a substance’s “potential for abuse,” including how to assess abuse potential relative to other controlled substances.
The stay comes after several parties that participated in the rescheduling hearing argued that the GAO report raises important questions about the process used by federal agencies to evaluate controlled substances and make scheduling recommendations. The federal government’s proposal to reschedule cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III relies heavily on HHS’s 2023 scientific and medical evaluation, which concluded that cannabis has a currently accepted medical use and should be placed in Schedule III. That recommendation represented a significant departure from prior federal findings, including those underlying previous denials of petitions to reschedule cannabis. Consequently, opponents of rescheduling argue that these findings call into question the reliability of the analytical framework used to support the Schedule III recommendation.
While the ALJ has not ruled on the merits of those arguments, he agreed that the issues raised by the GAO report warrant additional consideration before the proceeding moves forward. Thus, the order temporarily pauses the case and directs the government and other participants to respond to the motion by October 13, 2026.
From an industry perspective, the stay does not necessarily signal that cannabis rescheduling is in jeopardy. The GAO report predates these rescheduling proceedings, does not target cannabis explicitly, and did not conclude that the agencies violated the law, nor did it reject the scientific findings supporting Schedule III placement. In fact, GAO found that DEA generally follows HHS recommendations and that agency scheduling decisions have historically aligned with those recommendations.
However, the report provides opponents with additional procedural arguments and an opportunity to delay.
The coming weeks will determine whether the GAO report becomes part of the official record and whether it meaningfully impacts the ultimate outcome of the rescheduling proceeding. For now, all eyes remain on the DEA as the cannabis rescheduling process enters yet another critical phase.
Greenspoon Marder’s Cannabis Law practice group is closely monitoring these developments and stands ready to help businesses assess risk, plan strategically, and adapt to a changing regulatory landscape.
This publication is provided by Greenspoon Marder LLP is issued for informational purposes only and is not intended to be construed or used as general legal advice nor a solicitation of any type. Please contact the author(s) or your Greenspoon Marder LLP contact if you have any questions regarding the currency of this information. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision. Before you decide, ask for written information about the lawyer’s legal qualifications and experience.
