DEA Ordered to Respond on Bid to Reopen Rescheduling Hearing

October 15, 2026

Photo by succo via Pixabay.

Another week, another procedural detour in the marijuana rescheduling saga. DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius issued an order on Oct. 14 telling the DEA itself to respond by Oct. 21 to a push from rescheduling opponents who want the hearing reopened for additional testimony and discovery. It's a small instruction with outsized implications, because it keeps a proceeding that's already badly behind schedule locked in place for at least another week, probably longer.

The underlying Schedule I-to-III hearing has been stayed since Sept. 29, when a late-filed Government Accountability Office report on how DEA actually handles scheduling decisions threw a wrench into what was supposed to be a tidy record. Attorney General Todd Blanche had ordered this expedited hearing process back in April with an explicit target of wrapping up by July 15, 2026. That date came and went months ago, and the tribunal is still trading motions over whether to let in more evidence rather than moving toward a decision. Understanding what's actually being argued over right now, and why it matters for the broader timeline, requires untangling several overlapping fights that have piled up since late September.

The Oct. 14 Order, Explained

Photo by succo via Pixabay.

Judge Julius's Oct. 14 order does two things at once. First, it grants yet another motion allowing the anti-rescheduling coalition, made up of the National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association, DUID Victim Voices and Dr. Kenneth Finn, to file a reply to a recent DEA submission. That's a routine housekeeping move on its own. Second, and more consequentially, it directs DEA to respond to those same parties' request to reopen the hearing entirely so they can introduce more testimony and pursue additional discovery. DEA has until Oct. 21 to answer, and Julius capped that response at 10 pages, a limit that suggests he wants a focused answer rather than another sprawling filing.

How We Got Here: The GAO Report Dispute

Photo by Egle_pe via Pixabay.

None of this happens in a vacuum. The current stay traces back to Sept. 29, when Julius paused the broader rescheduling hearing after the same three opponent organizations asked to add a Sept. 23 GAO report into the official record. DEA weighed in on Oct. 9 with a split position: it had no objection to the GAO report itself becoming part of the record, but it pushed back hard against the extra briefing, discovery and witness testimony that opponents wanted attached to that report. Rather than settle the matter, that filing triggered a fresh round of motions from the opponent trio this week. One asks for permission to reply to DEA's opposition. Another asks Julius to reopen the hearing for limited discovery and testimony if the GAO report is admitted. A third, narrower motion focuses specifically on who directed the two-part CAMU test used in evaluating cannabis and on related process questions involving HHS and the FDA.

What the GAO Actually Found

Photo by Vitaliy Haiduk via Pexels.

The GAO report at the center of all this isn't a smoking gun, and it's worth being precise about what it actually says. Investigators reviewed 84 separate scheduling actions spanning several years and found that DEA has no documented internal procedure governing how staff generally carry out scheduling decisions. Neither DEA nor FDA, according to the report, maintains comprehensive written policies for evaluating and scheduling controlled substances. FDA specifically lacks written criteria for assessing a drug's potential for abuse, one of the core factors in any scheduling determination. GAO's concern is institutional: without documented procedures, consistency is at risk if experienced staff leave or turn over. The report stops well short of alleging that any specific past scheduling decision, including the current cannabis rescheduling push, was conducted unlawfully. Opponents are nonetheless leaning on that process gap to argue the current record deserves more scrutiny before any decision moves cannabis to Schedule III.

The Bigger Timeline: Blanche's Deadline That Wasn't

Photo by 12019 via Pixabay.

Step back and the contrast with Blanche's original directive is stark. He ordered this hearing expedited on April 23 with a target completion date of July 15, 2026, a deadline that's now three months in the rearview mirror with no substantive ruling in sight. Meanwhile, a separate and narrower rule issued earlier this year already moved FDA-approved marijuana products and state-licensed medical marijuana programs into Schedule III, and that rule hasn't been touched by any of the current stays. It's a live rule today. But it's not uncontested either: a consolidated challenge at the D.C. Circuit, brought by Smart Approaches to Marijuana and NDASA alongside the Indiana and Nebraska attorneys general, plus a separate coalition tied to MMJ International Holdings, is working its way through that appellate court right now. So the practical situation is split in two: the full rescheduling fight covering all cannabis is stuck in procedural gridlock before an administrative tribunal, while a narrower medical-only shift is already on the books, pending whatever the D.C. Circuit decides.

Watching Julius grant motion after motion to reply to replies, it's hard to read this as a tribunal on the verge of a substantive decision. Whatever DEA says by Oct. 21, expect more filings, more responses, and probably another stay extension rather than a ruling on whether cannabis actually moves to Schedule III. The GAO report dispute could easily stretch into winter before Julius even reaches the merits of reopening discovery, let alone the underlying rescheduling question itself.

For businesses and patients trying to plan around federal cannabis policy, the more useful thing to track right now isn't this stalled hearing at all. It's the D.C. Circuit's handling of the narrower Schedule III medical rule, since that's the track that's actually producing a live legal outcome rather than another procedural loop. A ruling there, in either direction, will tell you more about where federal cannabis policy is actually headed over the next year than anything coming out of Julius's courtroom.

In the meantime, state-level cannabis law keeps operating exactly as it has, independent of whatever happens in Washington. Medical and adult-use programs continue under their own state statutes regardless of how long the federal rescheduling fight drags on. If you're a patient, grower, or business owner, don't wait on this process to clarify your rights or obligations. Check your own state's current rules directly, since those are the regulations actually governing you today.