DEA Judge Sets Testimony Schedule for Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing Starting Next Week
A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) administrative law judge has released a detailed timetable for the upcoming hearing on the Trump administration’s proposal to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. The schedule, issued by Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius on June 18, 2026, allocates specific dates and times for each designated party to present evidence and conduct cross‑examination.
Key Dates and Presenters
- The Government – June 29, 2026
- National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA) – July 2, 2026
- Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) – July 6, 2026
- DUID Victim Voices – July 7, 2026
- Kenneth Finn, M.D. – July 8, 2026
- Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) – July 10, 2026
- Phillip A. Drum, PharmD – July 13, 2026
- States of Nebraska, Idaho, Indiana, and Louisiana (The States) – July 14, 2026
The order notes that parties may finish their examinations early or waive cross‑ or redirect examinations; in such cases the hearing will proceed ahead of schedule to the next item for that day, provided no party is forced to begin its case‑in‑chief on a different date.
Limited Participant List Raises Concerns
Under a prior decision by the DEA administrator, only opponents of the rescheduling proposal were invited to participate. Reform‑supporting groups that had expressed interest were not included, a fact that has prompted criticism from cannabis advocacy organizations and some members of Congress.
DEA, as the proponent of the rule, will defend the move to Schedule III. However, observers note the agency’s historical stance against cannabis legalization, which fuels skepticism about how vigorously it will advocate for the reform.
Transparency and Livestreaming Dispute
Judge Julius’s preliminary order also ruled that the hearing will not be televised, livestreamed, or broadcast in any way, despite acknowledging that “national public interest in this issue predicates towards a policy of transparency.”
Marijuana Moment’s counsel, Joseph A. Bondy, urged the judge to reconsider, pointing out that the DEA previously allowed livestreaming for a similar (though later cancelled) hearing during the Biden administration. Bondy argued that limited physical seating in Arlington, Virginia does not substitute for real‑time public access, especially for journalists and researchers who rely on immediate observation to report accurately.
“In a proceeding of this public significance, and in light of DEA’s prior livestreaming directive, a public hearing is not meaningfully public if access depends on the happenstance of limited physical attendance.” – Joseph A. Bondy, counsel for Marijuana Moment
Implications of Moving Marijuana to Schedule III
If the rescheduling is finalized, several federal agencies have already begun adjusting policies:
- The Congressional Research Service notes that certified patients possessing state‑licensed medical marijuana would gain certain protections under Schedule III, including the ability to possess marijuana for medical use without a CSA‑compliant prescription.
- The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has updated its firearms purchase form to clarify that only recreational use remains federally prohibited.
- The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) plans to issue new tax guidance that would allow state‑licensed marijuana businesses to claim federal tax deductions currently barred by IRS Code 280E, which does not apply to Schedule III substances.
- The DEA has launched a registration process for state‑legal marijuana businesses to access those federal benefits.
Conversely, the Department of Transportation maintains that use of state‑legal medical cannabis does not excuse a positive drug test for safety‑sensitive workers such as truck drivers and pilots.
Ongoing Legal Challenges
The rescheduling effort faces multiple lawsuits that have been consolidated by a federal appeals court. Plaintiffs include state attorneys general, marijuana legalization opponents, and a cannabis‑focused biopharmaceutical corporation, all alleging procedural irregularities in the rulemaking process.
A congressional committee recently voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to implement the rescheduling, underscoring the political tension surrounding the issue.
Conclusion
As the hearing approaches, the debate over marijuana’s federal classification continues to highlight conflicting interests between public health advocates, law enforcement agencies, industry stakeholders, and legislators. The judge’s schedule sets the stage for a meticulously timed presentation of evidence, while the restrictions on participant selection and livestreaming fuel broader questions about governmental transparency in high‑profile policy matters.
For the original source and additional details, see the Marijuana Moment article: Here.
