Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing: Briefs In, Decision Stalled

Photo by 2H Media via Unsplash.

The briefs are in, but the judge's recommendation is not coming soon. That gap is the problem with any headline suggesting a decision is close on federal marijuana rescheduling.

Post-hearing briefs were due in August. Then on Sept. 29, 2026, Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek C. Julius paused the proceeding while he weighs whether to add a new Government Accountability Office report to the record. I could not confirm whether any newer briefs have been filed since the stay, so check the DEA docket directly before relying on anything you read, including this piece.

The stakes are real. This proceeding covers the broader rescheduling proposed rule, the NPRM published in the Federal Register in May 2024, and its outcome shapes how marijuana is treated under federal law for years.

What the Hearing and Briefs Covered

The merits hearing on the rescheduling NPRM ran between June 29 and July 15, 2026, and closed after 11 days of testimony. Transcripts are documented and published, so anyone can read what witnesses actually said rather than relying on summaries.

Participants were then invited to submit post-hearing briefs to the judge by August 17, 2026. Those filings contain closing arguments and corrections to the transcripts. Chief ALJ Derek C. Julius presides over the whole proceeding.

The rule being tested is the one published in the Federal Register in May 2024. It has been working its way through a formal, trial-like process ever since, which is why there are witnesses, transcripts and briefs at all.

One caveat matters for accuracy. The sources I found do not confirm any briefing after the stay began. If you see a reference to final briefs, work out whether it means the August post-hearing briefs or separate filings tied to the GAO report. They are different things with different consequences, and the docket will show which is which.

Testimony That Shaped the Record

The testimony that drew the most attention came from DEA pharmacologist Luli Akinfiresoye. She appeared in July under subpoena as an expert witness for Smart Approaches to Marijuana, an organization opposed to rescheduling. Her statement was blunt: DEA did not run its own eight-factor analysis before the NPRM was published.

That detail carries weight because the eight factors are the statutory backbone of a scheduling decision. They cover things like a substance's known pharmacology, abuse potential and public health risk. If the agency charged with scheduling did not do that work itself before proposing the change, opponents can argue the foundation of the rule is shaky.

Notice what the argument targets. It is aimed at how the proposal came together, not at whether marijuana is safer than other Schedule I drugs. A procedural defect can sink a rule even when the science is contested, which is why opponents lean on it.

Trade press also reported that a witness called by the states conceded regulation reduces crime. I could not verify the details of that exchange, so I would treat it as a headline to chase down in the transcripts rather than a settled point.

The September 29 Stay and the GAO Report

On Sept. 29, 2026, Julius paused the pending NPRM proceedings. The stay applies while he considers a motion to add a new GAO report on federal drug-scheduling procedures to the hearing record. Cannabis Business Times says the report found gaps in DEA's scheduling policies, and that the stay went to anti-rescheduling parties, which include SAM and three other interested parties.

The moving parties asked the tribunal to hold its recommended decision, and certification of the record, until briefing on the GAO report is complete. Julius found merit in the argument that a stay would be warranted if the record were extended to include the report.

That wording is conditional. He has not said the report is in. He still has to decide whether to admit it or simply take official notice of its findings, and whether more briefing is needed either way.

The sources do not say whether he has ruled on the motion. Until he does, the proceeding sits in limbo, and any claim that the judge's recommendation is imminent runs ahead of the record.

What the Stay Does Not Touch

Photo by Jeff W via Unsplash.

The stay is narrower than it sounds. It does not affect the April 2026 order covering FDA-approved marijuana products and marijuana subject to a state medical marijuana license. That track keeps moving on its own.

How to describe that order depends on who you read. Recovered.org characterizes it as medical cannabis being reclassified from Schedule I to Schedule III. A summary from the law firm Vicente frames it as an order covering FDA-approved products and state-licensed medical marijuana. Those are not identical descriptions, so read the order itself before drawing conclusions about who it covers.

Everything broader stays tied to the paused NPRM, including the adult-use market that most of the industry cares about. That is where the open-ended wait lands.

Federal scheduling also does not rewrite state law. Licensing rules, possession limits and who can legally buy or grow still depend on where you live. Confirm your own state's rules rather than assuming a federal change alters them.

What Happens Next and How Long It Could Take

The order sets no deadline for Julius's recommended decision, so nobody can honestly name a date. Here is the sequence still ahead:

1. Julius rules on the motion to admit the GAO report or take official notice of it.
2. Any additional briefing he decides is warranted.
3. His recommended decision.
4. Exceptions, the formal objections participants may file within 20 days of the recommendation.
5. Review by DEA Administrator Terry Cole.
6. A final order, if Cole chooses to issue one.

Each step can stretch, and the first two depend entirely on a ruling that has not been reported yet.

If you want to follow along, go to the DEA docket itself. The docket number was truncated in the source I had, so confirm it there rather than copying one from a secondary article. Filings appear on the docket before the trade press digests them.

Finishing the briefing phase tells you little. The live question is what belongs in the record, because a GAO finding about DEA's own scheduling process could shape how vulnerable any final rule is when it reaches a court.

For businesses and patients, the practical move is to plan around an open-ended timeline instead of a target date. Budget and hire as if the answer could be months away, and read the docket rather than the headlines.

Browse our seed collection.