October 14, 2026
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
The DEA's marijuana rescheduling proceeding is frozen. On September 29, 2026, the agency's Chief Administrative Law Judge stayed the case while he decides whether to let a new Government Accountability Office report into the record. The stay is real and in force; what it means for the Schedule III timeline is not yet decided.
For operators, the practical answer is narrow: nothing in the order changes any rule that applies to you today, and the order does not say when the proceeding restarts. It does move the likely date of a certified recommendation further out, and that is a planning input worth pricing in.
Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek C. Julius issued an "Order Staying Case and Ordering Response to Motion" on September 29, 2026, in DEA Docket No. 1362 (Hearing Docket No. 26-96), In the Matter of Schedules of Controlled Substances: Proposed Rescheduling of Marijuana. The hearing itself ran June 29 through July 15, 2026; our coverage of the hearing's close in July and the post-hearing briefs sets out where the record stood.
The stay responds to a September 28 "Joint Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Briefing, for Admission of Supplemental Exhibit, and for Stay of Proceedings," filed by three interested parties: DUID Victim Voices, Kenneth Finn, M.D., and the National Drug and Alcohol Association. They ask the tribunal to admit the GAO report published September 23, 2026 (either as Finn Exhibit 126 or by official notice), allow additional briefing on it, and grant a brief stay. The order stays the matter "pending the Motion's resolution" and agrees that if the record is extended to include the report, a stay would be warranted to await briefing.
The government's response was due October 13, 2026, and other interested parties could file by the same date. As of this writing we have found no ruling on the motion.
The report, GAO-26-108623, is titled "Drug Scheduling: While DEA Decisions Have Aligned with Recent HHS Recommendations, Both Need Comprehensive Policies." It reviewed DEA and FDA scheduling data for 2020 through 2025. GAO found that for the 84 substances with final rules as of December 31, 2025, DEA's final decisions matched HHS's recommendations, and that DEA lacks policies defining roles, responsibilities and procedures for scheduling. It found FDA lacks policies on how staff conduct eight-factor evaluations, and that the FDA–NIDA memorandum of understanding is more than 40 years old. GAO made three recommendations, to the DEA Administrator, the FDA Commissioner, and the FDA Commissioner with the NIH Director. All three are open and the agencies concurred.
The GAO's summary page does not mention marijuana. The movants' argument for admitting it is their own, and the tribunal has not accepted it.
Three things are open. First, the judge has not ruled on whether the report comes in. Second, if it does, he has signaled additional briefing would follow, and the length of that briefing is undetermined. Third, the order is limited to the proceeding captioned above: it does not mention the medical marijuana order or Schedule III by name, and it contains no finding about the merits of rescheduling. Our coverage of the D.C. Circuit stay denial and the earlier NDASA stay motion track the separate medical-marijuana litigation track; read those for that track rather than inferring from this order.
In a formal rulemaking hearing of this kind, the administrative law judge manages the record, rules on motions and exhibits, and ultimately certifies the record and issues a recommended decision. That recommendation then goes to the DEA, which is not bound by it. A stay therefore does not decide anything about marijuana's schedule; it pauses the step that precedes the recommendation. Every week the record stays open is a week the recommendation cannot be certified, which is why a procedural motion about one exhibit carries timing weight well beyond its size.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 29 – July 15, 2026 | DEA rescheduling hearing held |
| September 23, 2026 | GAO publishes GAO-26-108623 |
| September 28, 2026 | Joint motion filed for supplemental briefing, exhibit admission and stay |
| September 29, 2026 | Chief ALJ stays the case pending resolution of the motion |
| October 13, 2026 | Government response due; other parties may respond |
This is a federal administrative proceeding; it has no direct effect on state licensing. State programs continue to operate under their own rules, and state-law status is unchanged by the stay. Operators in multiple states should treat the federal question as a timing risk to financial planning, not a licensing event. For the earlier hearing week, see our week-one recap.
This proceeding has not produced a final rule, and the stay order does not change marijuana's current federal scheduling. Check our federal rescheduling coverage for the status of other tracks.
DUID Victim Voices, Kenneth Finn, M.D., and the National Drug and Alcohol Association, in a joint motion filed September 28, 2026.
No. The order stays the case while the motion to admit the report is decided. It does not admit the report.
This is regulatory journalism, not legal advice — talk to your counsel.
The DEA's marijuana rescheduling proceeding is frozen. On September 29, 2026, the agency's Chief Administrative Law Judge stayed the case while he decides whether to let a new Government Accountability Office report into the record. The stay is real and in force; what it means for the Schedule III timeline is not yet decided.
For operators, the practical answer is narrow: nothing in the order changes any rule that applies to you today, and the order does not say when the proceeding restarts. It does move the likely date of a certified recommendation further out, and that is a planning input worth pricing in.
Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek C. Julius issued an "Order Staying Case and Ordering Response to Motion" on September 29, 2026, in DEA Docket No. 1362 (Hearing Docket No. 26-96), In the Matter of Schedules of Controlled Substances: Proposed Rescheduling of Marijuana. The hearing itself ran June 29 through July 15, 2026; our coverage of the hearing's close in July and the post-hearing briefs sets out where the record stood.
The stay responds to a September 28 "Joint Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Briefing, for Admission of Supplemental Exhibit, and for Stay of Proceedings," filed by three interested parties: DUID Victim Voices, Kenneth Finn, M.D., and the National Drug and Alcohol Association. They ask the tribunal to admit the GAO report published September 23, 2026 (either as Finn Exhibit 126 or by official notice), allow additional briefing on it, and grant a brief stay. The order stays the matter "pending the Motion's resolution" and agrees that if the record is extended to include the report, a stay would be warranted to await briefing.
The government's response was due October 13, 2026, and other interested parties could file by the same date. As of this writing we have found no ruling on the motion.
The report, GAO-26-108623, is titled "Drug Scheduling: While DEA Decisions Have Aligned with Recent HHS Recommendations, Both Need Comprehensive Policies." It reviewed DEA and FDA scheduling data for 2020 through 2025. GAO found that for the 84 substances with final rules as of December 31, 2025, DEA's final decisions matched HHS's recommendations, and that DEA lacks policies defining roles, responsibilities and procedures for scheduling. It found FDA lacks policies on how staff conduct eight-factor evaluations, and that the FDA–NIDA memorandum of understanding is more than 40 years old. GAO made three recommendations, to the DEA Administrator, the FDA Commissioner, and the FDA Commissioner with the NIH Director. All three are open and the agencies concurred.
The GAO's summary page does not mention marijuana. The movants' argument for admitting it is their own, and the tribunal has not accepted it.
Three things are open. First, the judge has not ruled on whether the report comes in. Second, if it does, he has signaled additional briefing would follow, and the length of that briefing is undetermined. Third, the order is limited to the proceeding captioned above: it does not mention the medical marijuana order or Schedule III by name, and it contains no finding about the merits of rescheduling. Our coverage of the D.C. Circuit stay denial and the earlier NDASA stay motion track the separate medical-marijuana litigation track; read those for that track rather than inferring from this order.
In a formal rulemaking hearing of this kind, the administrative law judge manages the record, rules on motions and exhibits, and ultimately certifies the record and issues a recommended decision. That recommendation then goes to the DEA, which is not bound by it. A stay therefore does not decide anything about marijuana's schedule; it pauses the step that precedes the recommendation. Every week the record stays open is a week the recommendation cannot be certified, which is why a procedural motion about one exhibit carries timing weight well beyond its size.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 29 – July 15, 2026 | DEA rescheduling hearing held |
| September 23, 2026 | GAO publishes GAO-26-108623 |
| September 28, 2026 | Joint motion filed for supplemental briefing, exhibit admission and stay |
| September 29, 2026 | Chief ALJ stays the case pending resolution of the motion |
| October 13, 2026 | Government response due; other parties may respond |
This is a federal administrative proceeding; it has no direct effect on state licensing. State programs continue to operate under their own rules, and state-law status is unchanged by the stay. Operators in multiple states should treat the federal question as a timing risk to financial planning, not a licensing event. For the earlier hearing week, see our week-one recap.
This proceeding has not produced a final rule, and the stay order does not change marijuana's current federal scheduling. Check our federal rescheduling coverage for the status of other tracks.
DUID Victim Voices, Kenneth Finn, M.D., and the National Drug and Alcohol Association, in a joint motion filed September 28, 2026.
No. The order stays the case while the motion to admit the report is decided. It does not admit the report.
This is regulatory journalism, not legal advice — talk to your counsel.