Pharma Firm, Drug Testers Sue to Block Trump's Marijuana Reschedule

Photo by Colin Lloyd via Unsplash.

A workplace drug-testing trade group and a small pharmaceutical company are asking a federal appeals court to hit pause on marijuana's move to Schedule III while their broader lawsuit against the reclassification grinds forward. The order they're targeting took effect April 28, and it already shifted FDA-approved cannabis products and state-licensed medical marijuana programs out of Schedule I. In a brief filed this week, the petitioners argue that lower taxes on cannabis companies under the new schedule will "stimulate the industry and increase marijuana abuse," with specific warnings aimed at adolescents and pregnant women.

The Justice Department isn't buying the public-health framing. In its own filings, DOJ says the real story is financial self-interest -- drug-testing companies standing to lose business, employers facing compliance headaches, and a pharmaceutical company trying to keep future competitors off the market. All of this is unfolding alongside a separate DEA administrative hearing on whether to reschedule marijuana more broadly, meaning the federal government is simultaneously litigating and re-litigating the same basic question in two different venues.

What the New Brief Actually Argues

Photo by Anastassia Anufrieva via Unsplash.

The brief landed on a Thursday in mid-July 2026, filed as a direct response to DOJ's opposition to the petitioners' motion for a stay. It's a relatively short document, but the framing is deliberate: this isn't just a procedural dispute about tax code interpretation, the petitioners insist, it's a public health emergency in the making. The filing leans hard on the idea that marijuana carries "dangerous, lifelong consequences" for certain populations, singling out adolescents and pregnant women as the groups most at risk if the drug becomes more accessible or more normalized.

The mechanism they point to is economic rather than pharmacological. Schedule III status means state-licensed cannabis businesses would no longer be subject to Section 280E of the federal tax code, which currently bars them from deducting ordinary business expenses because they're trafficking in a Schedule I substance. Remove that burden, the petitioners argue, and cannabis companies suddenly have healthier margins, more capital to expand, more money for marketing -- and, in their telling, that expansion translates directly into more people using marijuana, including groups the law is supposedly designed to protect.

What they're asking for is narrow but consequential: a stay of Attorney General Order No. 6754-2026 from the D.C. Circuit, freezing the rescheduling while the underlying legal challenge to its validity plays out. If granted, that would effectively roll marijuana's federal status back to Schedule I on a temporary basis, undoing the tax and research changes that took effect just weeks earlier. It's a significant ask, and it puts the appeals court in the position of deciding whether industry economics alone can justify unwinding an executive action already in motion.

Who's Suing and Why It Matters to Them

Photo by Julia Koblitz via Unsplash.

The petitioners here aren't a single unified voice -- they're an alliance of parties with pretty different reasons for wanting Schedule I intact. The National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association, known as NDASA, represents workplace and drug-testing companies whose entire business model rests on marijuana staying illegal enough that employers keep screening for it. If federal policy shifts and employers start loosening their testing protocols, that's a direct hit to NDASA members' revenue.

Then there's MMJ International Holdings, a considerably more unusual party to find on this side of the fight. Led by CEO Duane Boise, MMJ and its subsidiaries -- MMJ BioPharma Cultivation and MMJ BioPharma Labs -- are developing cannabinoid-based investigational drugs targeting Huntington's disease and multiple sclerosis, working through the FDA's Investigational New Drug pathway. The company says it has spent roughly eight years and $10 million trying to get a cannabis-derived drug through the federal approval process. Its concern isn't that marijuana is dangerous in the abstract -- it's that a looser regulatory environment for the broader cannabis industry could undercut the narrow, tightly controlled pharmaceutical lane MMJ has been building toward.

This latest brief responds to an original stay motion filed June 9 in the D.C. Circuit. It's one piece of a larger consolidated case: three separate lawsuits -- one from Smart Approaches to Marijuana and NDASA, one from a coalition including MMJ and several doctors, and one brought by a group of state attorneys general (Louisiana has since dropped out) -- have all been folded together before the same panel of judges, meaning whatever the court decides here will resolve all three threads at once.

DOJ's Response: 'Pocketbook Interests,' Not Public Health

Photo by Mark Stebnicki via Pexels.

DOJ's opposition brief doesn't mince words. The government describes the petitioners as parties with "pocketbook interests served by keeping all marijuana in schedule I," and lays out three distinct financial motives behind the lawsuit. Drug-screening companies stand to lose business and face higher compliance costs if fewer employers require marijuana testing. Employers themselves may need to overhaul existing drug-testing protocols, an administrative and legal headache DOJ suggests some petitioners would rather avoid. And MMJ, the government argues, is really trying to block future competition -- keeping the broader state-legal cannabis market boxed in so it doesn't have to compete against a wider, better-capitalized field once its own drug eventually reaches approval.

On MMJ specifically, DOJ goes a step further and challenges its standing to sue at all, noting the company has "not yet produced an authorized product to compete in the marketplace." In other words, MMJ is asking the court to protect it from a competitive landscape that doesn't yet include its own product -- a legal vulnerability that could sink its participation in the case regardless of how the broader stay question gets resolved.

Adding another layer to the fight: two medical marijuana companies, MedPharm Iowa/Bud & Mary's and Tri-Mountain Pure, tried to intervene on the government's side of the case, presumably to defend the rescheduling that benefits their own tax situation. SAM and NDASA's lawyers objected to letting them join. That objection alone tells you something -- this case is being fought as much over who gets a seat at the table as over the merits, and it underscores that the real battle line here runs through market share, not abstract drug policy.

The Bigger Timeline: How We Got Here

Photo by Mark Stebnicki via Pexels.

The path to this point started well before the current lawsuit. President Trump signed an executive order on marijuana policy on December 18, 2025, setting the rescheduling process in motion. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche followed through with the actual reclassification order on April 23-24, 2026, and it took legal effect April 28. That order, AG Order No. 6754-2026, moved FDA-approved marijuana products and state-licensed medical marijuana programs from Schedule I to Schedule III -- a narrower shift than full legalization, but still the most significant change to marijuana's federal status in decades.

Running in parallel is a separate process at the DEA: an administrative hearing on full rescheduling, covering recreational marijuana as well, which began June 29, 2026 and was scheduled to conclude by July 15, 2026. That hearing has drawn its own scrutiny -- reportedly, all seven participants selected for it oppose rescheduling, which raises obvious questions about how representative or balanced that process actually is, and whether its conclusions will carry weight beyond the DEA itself.

Worth noting too: SAM's side of the litigation is being handled by Torridon Law, a firm where former Attorney General Bill Barr is a partner. That's a notable name to have attached to a case arguing against a policy move from the current administration, and it signals that this fight has real institutional heft behind it rather than being a fringe legal effort.

What's Actually at Stake for the Industry

Photo by Elsa Olofsson via Unsplash.

The practical stakes for the cannabis industry are concrete and immediate. Schedule III status lets state-legal cannabis businesses finally deduct ordinary business expenses -- payroll, rent, marketing -- something Section 280E has denied them for years, squeezing margins across cultivation, retail, and manufacturing alike. That tax relief is arguably the single biggest tangible benefit of the reclassification, more impactful in the near term than any research or medical framing.

It's worth being clear about what rescheduling doesn't do: it doesn't legalize marijuana federally, and it doesn't change state-by-state legality one bit. Recreational and medical marijuana laws remain a patchwork, and readers should confirm the rules in their own state rather than assuming a federal schedule change settles anything locally.

If the D.C. Circuit grants the stay, though, all of that gets frozen mid-transition. Cultivators and dispensaries that adjusted their 2026 tax planning around Schedule III status would suddenly be back in 280E limbo. Researchers who'd started planning studies around the eased restrictions on Schedule III substances would face the same uncertainty. It's the kind of whiplash that makes long-term business planning nearly impossible.

On the other side, the drug-testing industry's exposure is real, not manufactured. If employers gradually stop requiring marijuana screening as it moves further from Schedule I status, that's lost revenue for an entire sector built around compliance testing. What's genuinely strange is MMJ's position in all this -- a cannabis-adjacent company, itself trying to bring a cannabinoid drug to market, arguing against a change that most industry watchers would expect to help companies like it. That contradiction is worth sitting with as the case moves forward.

What's striking about this fight is who's leading it. The loudest opposition to rescheduling isn't coming from traditional prohibitionists worried about marijuana on moral or public-health grounds alone -- it's coming from businesses whose revenue depends on marijuana staying illegal enough to keep drug tests mandatory, or on locking out competitors before they can even launch a product. That's a very different kind of opposition than the "reefer madness" arguments of decades past, even if the brief's language about adolescents and pregnant women is clearly designed to evoke exactly that tradition.

The next real signal will come from the D.C. Circuit's decision on the stay motion itself. Grant it, and Schedule III implementation freezes mid-stream, throwing tax planning and research timelines back into uncertainty for cannabis businesses that had already started adjusting to the new rules. Deny it, and the order keeps moving forward while the underlying case -- consolidated across three lawsuits -- continues to be litigated on the merits, potentially for months more.

Either way, nobody should treat federal rescheduling as finished business. Between this consolidated litigation and the parallel DEA hearing on full rescheduling, there are still two separate processes that could reshape marijuana's federal status again before the year is out. State-legal operators, investors, and patients alike should keep watching both tracks closely -- and keep checking their own state's laws, since none of this changes what's legal on the ground until the courts and the DEA both actually close the book.