Post‑Chevron Compliance: How Loper Bright Is Changing FDA/FTC/DEA Playbooks for Cannabis in 2025–2026

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s 2024 Loper Bright decision marked a historic turning point for federal regulation, especially for businesses navigating the complex interplay between the FDA, FTC, and DEA in the cannabinoid sector. For decades, the Chevron doctrine meant federal courts often deferred to agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutory language. Now, with Chevron gone, courts independently determine what the law means—even when the relevant agency disagrees.

This seismic shift presents both risk and opportunity for anyone working in regulated cannabinoid markets. The loss of automatic deference does not mean a regulatory "free for all"—far from it. However, it does upend familiar compliance strategies and places a new premium on statutory language, Congressional intent, and the evidentiary underpinnings of agency rules.

In this analysis, we explore how recent court decisions are reshaping the compliance landscape for cannabinoid markets in 2025–2026. We’ll examine:

• How FDA, FTC, and DEA enforcement is adapting post-Loper Bright
• Key compliance strategies for businesses and risk management
• Anticipated litigation hotspots
• Practical takeaways for regulatory teams

What Loper Bright Changed: The End of Chevron Deference

For forty years, the Chevron doctrine gave federal agencies like the FDA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) considerable leeway. If Congress’s statutory language was ambiguous, courts almost always deferred to the agency’s reasonable interpretation. This gave regulators substantial power to adapt enforcement or guidance without waiting for Congressional updates—especially useful in fast-moving science and technology sectors.

The June 2024 Loper Bright decision upended this framework. Now, courts must perform their own, independent reading of ambiguous statutes, regardless of agencies’ opinions. This means courts can strike down agency rules or guidance wherever they overstep the clear statutory text or cannot justify actions within Congressional mandates.

For the cannabinoid industry—where federal law (like the 2018 Farm Bill and FDCA) is often fragmentary, and many critical distinctions (e.g., lawful hemp vs. illegal analogs, what constitutes an adulterated food or supplement, etc.) are subject to agency interpretation—this judicial shift dramatically increases both uncertainty and opportunity.

Key takeaway: No more automatic deference for FDA/FTC/DEA rulemaking: Only statutory language and clear Congressional intent prevail in legal disputes.

FDA: Post-Loper Bright Uncertainty for CBD, Foods, and Supplements

The FDA has long held that CBD is not a permissible dietary ingredient or additive for foods and supplements mainly because it was first investigated as a drug (Epidiolex). The agency has issued warnings, seized products, and published guidance documents—largely relying on its interpretation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).

What Loper Bright Means for FDA Authority

Under the Loper Bright standard, courts now scrutinize:

• Whether Congress truly authorized the FDA to regulate cannabinoids as it claims
• Whether each agency interpretive move, like excluding CBD from supplements, is grounded in statutory text

Any regulatory enforcement (like warning letters for CBD-infused foods or supplements) can be directly challenged if the statutory basis is vague or unsupported. This is especially true for novel or minor cannabinoids where Congressional intent is unclear.

Real-World Trends (2025–2026)

• Increase in federal litigation: Plaintiffs have already begun challenging FDA positions in 2025, alleging agency overreach on product bans or warning letters.
• Focus on statutory text: Courts demand clear FDCA authority before upholding embargoes or classifications on cannabinoids.
• Marketing and labeling risk: FDA will continue to pursue unsubstantiated health or medical claims—but the details of what counts as a forbidden claim will likely be judged more stringently by courts (see CannabisRegulations.ai’s analysis).

Takeaway for compliance: Always document your product’s compliance with applicable statutes (not just agency guidance!), maintain deep records of scientific substantiation, and be prepared for rapidly shifting regulatory interpretations.

FTC: Advertising Oversight Faces Elevated Scrutiny

The FTC maintains broad authority over deceptive advertising, including claims about cannabinoid content, health benefits, and safety. It typically relies on its interpretive rules and long-standing guides about what constitutes misleading or substantiated claims.

Post-Loper Bright: What’s Changing?

• Direct judicial review: Challenges to FTC’s advertising standards for cannabinoids are more likely to progress (or succeed) if not clearly tied to statutory definitions of deceptive practices.
• Documentation is king: Businesses making structure/function or wellness claims (even soft ones) must be prepared for courts to demand real scientific evidence and analyze whether FTC guidance follows the actual language of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
• Litigation Watch: Already in 2025, some companies have mounted defenses against FTC actions by contesting whether the specific types of cannabinoid claims at issue are truly prohibited under federal law or just under FTC "interpretation."

Takeaway for compliance: Update ad review and claims substantiation processes. When faced with regulatory inquiries, center your defense and compliance efforts around the explicit language of the statutes, not just the FTC’s guides or FAQ pages.

DEA: Scheduling, Analogs, and Hemp-Derived Products

In the wake of Loper Bright, the DEA finds itself under new judicial scrutiny, especially regarding how it schedules substances or defines "analogs."

Key Regulatory Shifts After Loper Bright

• Ambiguity in scheduling authority: Courts now demand that DEA show explicit Congressional authority to schedule or ban new cannabinoids or analogs, rather than interpreting catch-all language expansively.
  • Example: The 2018 Farm Bill’s language on hemp and THC analogs is being tested, and some courts have rejected DEA’s broad interpretations for minor cannabinoids not expressly mentioned in statute (see CannabisRegulations.ai update).
• Rescheduling challenges: Ongoing litigation is scrutinizing the procedural steps DEA takes to move cannabinoids (like CBD or THC variants) between Controlled Substances Act schedules. The FDA’s advice to DEA in these proceedings is also now being more rigorously examined.
• Analog enforcement limits: Cases in 2025 have questioned DEA’s authority to prosecute possession or sale of cannabinoid analogs when the statute’s language is unclear or silent.

Takeaway for compliance: When launching, manufacturing, or distributing new cannabinoid products in 2025, conduct your own legal analysis. Have a well-reasoned statutory and scientific rationale for why your products are permissible under the CSA and Farm Bill.

Litigation and Enforcement: What to Watch in 2025 and 2026

Federal courts are rapidly becoming the battlefield for unresolved questions in cannabinoid regulation. Key litigation and enforcement patterns include:

• FDA warning letters and marketing bans are being contested more often, and sometimes with success, especially regarding CBD and non-intoxicating cannabinoids.
• FTC actions against unsubstantiated claims now require more rigorous evidence in court. Compliance teams are updating substantiation files and tracking statutory developments closely.
• DEA enforcement and scheduling decisions, especially for hemp derivatives and analog substances, face ongoing legal pushback unless the agency can demonstrate clear Congressional mandates.

Compliance Tips for 2025–2026

1. Stay current on litigation: Tracking active cases challenging FDA, FTC, or DEA authority is now critical for forecasting shifting compliance duties.
2. Document statutory analysis: For every product or claim, keep detailed files showing how your compliance approach flows from the law’s text, not just agency guidance.
3. Build flexible compliance policies: Agencies may quickly issue revised guidance or enforcement stances after court losses—adaptability is key.
4. Monitor new Congressional actions: If courts strike or limit agency powers, Congress may act to clarify relevant statutes—this can rapidly reset the compliance landscape.

Conclusion: Navigating a Statute-First Era for Cannabinoid Compliance

The fallout from the Loper Bright decision is transforming how compliance teams, marketers, and product strategists approach FDA, FTC, and DEA regulation of cannabinoids.

Instead of relying exclusively on agency interpretations, industry actors must:

• Anchor all compliance decisions to clear statutory language and Congressional intent
• Deepen documentation around claims and product approvals
• Stay alert to both litigation developments and the possibility of swift regulatory change

While the regulatory waters are more turbulent, companies willing to invest in legal research and adaptive compliance strategies will be best positioned to thrive in this new era.

For ongoing analysis, compliance tools, and real-time case tracking, visit CannabisRegulations.ai and leverage our professional resources to keep your business ahead of legal change.