July 21, 2026
The evidentiary record in the DEA's marijuana rescheduling hearing closed on July 15, with the last of seven designated participants — the states of Nebraska, Idaho, Indiana and Louisiana — putting their case before Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius on July 14. The hearing, held at DEA headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, ran from June 29 through a July 15 record-closure deadline, and it ended with the opposition's own expert having conceded the central legal question.
On July 6, Dr. Bertha Madras — the Harvard psychobiologist testifying for Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) — acknowledged under cross-examination by DEA counsel that marijuana meets the statutory criteria for Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act. Madras has been the most credentialed scientific voice against rescheduling since the proceeding began; her concession does not bind the ALJ, but it narrows the ground on which a recommendation against rescheduling could rest. All seven designated participants selected by DEA on June 18 opposed the move, which makes an on-the-record concession from that side of the table the hearing's most consequential moment.
The opposition's affirmative argument came into sharpest focus on July 8, when Dr. Kenneth Finn, a Colorado pain physician, testified that 18 of 27 randomized controlled trials he reviewed showed no benefit from marijuana for the conditions studied, and characterized state medical marijuana programs as "a ruse" — recreational access wearing a clinical label. Finn's argument goes to the "currently accepted medical use" prong: if state programs are not genuine medical systems, the government's two-part test (which leaned on state-level acceptance) rests on a false premise.
The record's last days belonged to the enforcement and state-government witnesses. The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation testified July 10 on diversion and potency trends. Pharmacist Phillip Drum appeared July 13. On July 14, the four objecting states presented Dr. Deepak Cyril D'Souza, founding director of the Yale Center for the Science of Cannabis and Cannabinoids, as their principal scientific expert, alongside Humboldt County, California Sheriff William Honsal, who testified to unregulated-market harms in a legal state. Testimony ended that day; the record closed no later than July 15.
The end of testimony starts the slowest part of the process. The parties will submit proposed findings and post-hearing briefs on a schedule Judge Julius sets. Julius then issues a recommended decision; parties have 20 days to file exceptions. The complete record — recommendation, exceptions and all — goes to the DEA Administrator, who makes the final call and issues (or declines to issue) a final rule. Whichever way that decision goes, litigation is widely expected before any change takes effect. Operators should treat the realistic horizon as quarters, not weeks: a recommended decision later this year, a final rule after that, and court challenges layered on top.
For a recap of how the proceeding opened, see week one of the hearing and what the hearing set out to decide.
Nothing changes until a final rule takes effect — and possibly not until courts finish with it. That means Section 280E remains fully in force for plant-touching businesses. Keep 280E reserves intact and resist booking anticipated Schedule III tax treatment; the §280E compliance playbook covers the accounting posture in detail. Employers should also revisit drug-testing and workplace policies now, so they are not drafting under deadline pressure when a final rule lands. None of this is legal advice — talk to your counsel.
Participant testimony ran through July 14, 2026, and the hearing concluded no later than July 15.
Under DEA cross-examination, Dr. Bertha Madras acknowledged marijuana meets the statutory criteria for Schedule III under the CSA.
No. The ALJ issues a recommendation, DEA issues a final rule, and litigation is expected before anything changes.
Keep §280E reserves intact and review drug-testing and employment policies with counsel; nothing changes until a final rule takes effect.
The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, Phillip Drum, and the states of Nebraska, Idaho, Indiana and Louisiana — with Yale's Dr. Deepak Cyril D'Souza and Humboldt County Sheriff William Honsal as their witnesses.
The evidentiary record in the DEA's marijuana rescheduling hearing closed on July 15, with the last of seven designated participants — the states of Nebraska, Idaho, Indiana and Louisiana — putting their case before Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius on July 14. The hearing, held at DEA headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, ran from June 29 through a July 15 record-closure deadline, and it ended with the opposition's own expert having conceded the central legal question.
On July 6, Dr. Bertha Madras — the Harvard psychobiologist testifying for Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) — acknowledged under cross-examination by DEA counsel that marijuana meets the statutory criteria for Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act. Madras has been the most credentialed scientific voice against rescheduling since the proceeding began; her concession does not bind the ALJ, but it narrows the ground on which a recommendation against rescheduling could rest. All seven designated participants selected by DEA on June 18 opposed the move, which makes an on-the-record concession from that side of the table the hearing's most consequential moment.
The opposition's affirmative argument came into sharpest focus on July 8, when Dr. Kenneth Finn, a Colorado pain physician, testified that 18 of 27 randomized controlled trials he reviewed showed no benefit from marijuana for the conditions studied, and characterized state medical marijuana programs as "a ruse" — recreational access wearing a clinical label. Finn's argument goes to the "currently accepted medical use" prong: if state programs are not genuine medical systems, the government's two-part test (which leaned on state-level acceptance) rests on a false premise.
The record's last days belonged to the enforcement and state-government witnesses. The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation testified July 10 on diversion and potency trends. Pharmacist Phillip Drum appeared July 13. On July 14, the four objecting states presented Dr. Deepak Cyril D'Souza, founding director of the Yale Center for the Science of Cannabis and Cannabinoids, as their principal scientific expert, alongside Humboldt County, California Sheriff William Honsal, who testified to unregulated-market harms in a legal state. Testimony ended that day; the record closed no later than July 15.
The end of testimony starts the slowest part of the process. The parties will submit proposed findings and post-hearing briefs on a schedule Judge Julius sets. Julius then issues a recommended decision; parties have 20 days to file exceptions. The complete record — recommendation, exceptions and all — goes to the DEA Administrator, who makes the final call and issues (or declines to issue) a final rule. Whichever way that decision goes, litigation is widely expected before any change takes effect. Operators should treat the realistic horizon as quarters, not weeks: a recommended decision later this year, a final rule after that, and court challenges layered on top.
For a recap of how the proceeding opened, see week one of the hearing and what the hearing set out to decide.
Nothing changes until a final rule takes effect — and possibly not until courts finish with it. That means Section 280E remains fully in force for plant-touching businesses. Keep 280E reserves intact and resist booking anticipated Schedule III tax treatment; the §280E compliance playbook covers the accounting posture in detail. Employers should also revisit drug-testing and workplace policies now, so they are not drafting under deadline pressure when a final rule lands. None of this is legal advice — talk to your counsel.
Participant testimony ran through July 14, 2026, and the hearing concluded no later than July 15.
Under DEA cross-examination, Dr. Bertha Madras acknowledged marijuana meets the statutory criteria for Schedule III under the CSA.
No. The ALJ issues a recommendation, DEA issues a final rule, and litigation is expected before anything changes.
Keep §280E reserves intact and review drug-testing and employment policies with counsel; nothing changes until a final rule takes effect.
The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, Phillip Drum, and the states of Nebraska, Idaho, Indiana and Louisiana — with Yale's Dr. Deepak Cyril D'Souza and Humboldt County Sheriff William Honsal as their witnesses.
