When will marijuana be rescheduled? — Before 2027

- [2025-12-18] President Trump signed Executive Order 14370 directing the Attorney General to complete rulemaking to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III "in the most expeditious manner in accordance with Federal law." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2026_United_States_cannabis_reform_proposals - [2026-04-23] Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed a Final Order transferring FDA-approved marijuana products and marijuana subject to state-licensed medical marijuana programs from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act, effective immediately , while adult-use (recreational) marijuana remains Schedule I. https://www.saul.com/insights/alert/dea-reschedules-fda-approved-marijuana-products-and-state-licensed-medical-marijuana - [2026-04-28] Documents appeared on the Federal Register's public inspection page April 27, with formal publication April 28, 2026; the effective date of the rescheduling is the date of publication — April 28, 2026. https://foleyhoag.com/news-and-insights/publications/alerts-and-updates/2026/april/cannabis-rescheduling-doj-treasury-and-dea-updates-since-the-april-23-order/ - [2026-04-23] Simultaneously, DOJ/DEA announced a new administrative hearing beginning June 29, 2026, to consider broader rescheduling of all marijuana — including adult-use marijuana — from Schedule I to Schedule III , resetting a prior stalled Biden-era proceeding. https://www.saul.com/insights/alert/dea-reschedules-fda-approved-marijuana-products-and-state-licensed-medical-marijuana - [2026-06-29 to 2026-07-15] A DEA administrative rescheduling hearing for recreational marijuana was held over several days from June 29 through July 15, 2026. https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/cannabis-rescheduling/news/15834706/where-are-we-on-cannabis-rescheduling-its-been-months-since-the-us-attorney-generals-april-2026-order - [2026-08-17] Post-hearing briefs were filed; DEA argued in its brief that marijuana "no longer fits the statutory requirements for Schedule I" and DEA must give "significant deference" to the HHS's scientific and medical evaluation recommending rescheduling. https://www.marijuanamoment.net/dea-judge-pauses-marijuana-rescheduling-hearing-as-opponents-highlight-government-report-detailing-gaps-in-federal-processes/ - [2026-09-11] As of publication, despite the summer hearing, no decision had been issued, so recreational marijuana remains federally illegal; no decision has yet been made by the DEA on whether recreational marijuana will be rescheduled. https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/cannabis-rescheduling/news/15834706/where-are-we-on-cannabis-rescheduling-its-been-months-since-the-us-attorney-generals-april-2026-order - [2026-09-23] A GAO report found "gaps" in DEA and FDA policies around the scheduling process, including "specifying how… staff are to conduct evaluations," though the report analyzed 208 scheduling actions, not just cannabis. https://mjbizdaily.com/news/new-delay-for-federal-marijuana-rescheduling-as-flaws-in-process-parsed/618388 - [2026-09-28] Anti-rescheduling parties (DUID Victim Voices, Dr. Kenneth Finn, NDASA) filed a motion September 28 asking to add the GAO report to the hearing record. https://vicentellp.com/insights/dea-judge-pauses-marijuana-rescheduling-gao-report/ - [2026-09-30] DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius issued a stay of the rescheduling proceeding; responses to the motion are due October 13, 2026, with the government required to respond by that date and other interested parties permitted to respond. Judge Julius has been mulling how to advise the Justice Department since the conclusion of the July hearings, and is not operating under any set deadlines, nor is Attorney General Blanche required to follow his ruling. https://mjbizdaily.com/news/new-delay-for-federal-marijuana-rescheduling-as-flaws-in-process-parsed/618388 - [2026-10-01] NORML confirmed the stay and noted the Biden Administration recommended reclassifying botanical cannabis in 2023, and designated hearings initially scheduled for January 2025 never took place — underscoring a long history of delay. https://norml.org/news/2026/10/01/administrative-law-judge-temporarily-stays-cannabis-rescheduling-proceedings/ - [2026-10-04 status] The stay delays the judge's recommended decision on moving marijuana to Schedule III, but does not affect the April 2026 order covering FDA-approved marijuana products and marijuana subject to a state medical marijuana license ; litigation against the April order also continues before the D.C. Circuit, which has so far declined to block it. https://vicentellp.com/insights/dea-judge-pauses-marijuana-rescheduling-gao-report/ BOTTOM LINE: Only a partial reschedule (FDA-approved and state-licensed medical marijuana to Schedule III) has legally taken effect (April 28, 2026); recreational/all-marijuana rescheduling — the change needed to satisfy this contract's "marijuana as a whole" requirement — remains stuck at the ALJ recommendation stage, now stayed pending GAO-report briefing due October 13, 2026, with no fixed timeline and no obligation on DOJ to follow the judge's eventual recommendation, making full rescheduling before January 1, 2027 look administratively tight but not impossible. NOT FOUND: No evidence of any Final Order rescheduling marijuana "as a whole" (recreational use) as of October 4, 2026; no announced date for DEA Administrator's final decision after the ALJ's eventual recommendation; no confirmation of outcome of the October 13, 2026 GAO-report briefing dispute.

- [1970-present] Marijuana has remained in Schedule I since the CSA's enactment; no full rescheduling of the plant has ever occurred despite multiple attempts (1972 NORML petition, 1980s hearings, 2016 DEA denial, 2022 Biden review). This is the relevant base rate: zero successful full reschedulings in over 50 years. https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/Scheduling%20NPRM%20508.pdf - [1986-1994 precedent] The closest historical analogue: a 1980s DEA cannabis scheduling proceeding took "two years after the hearing for the judge to issue a recommendation, and another two years before the DEA published its final order," and even then the Administrator rejected the ALJ's pro-rescheduling recommendation; during a previous DEA scheduling hearing for cannabis in the 1980s, it took two years after the hearing for the judge to issue a recommendation, and another two years before the DEA published its final order, and the DEA Administrator rejected the ALJ's rescheduling recommendation, a reversal the D.C. Circuit upheld in 1994, with the whole process taking nearly a decade. - [1986-1991] A separate formal CSA rulemaking on marijuana in that era shows typical formal-hearing duration: the Department initiated formal rulemaking in late 1986, involving multiple prehearing conferences and fourteen days of live hearings, with the entire process from first notice of hearing to the Administrator's final decision taking three and a half years — and that outcome kept marijuana in Schedule I. - [2024-2025 modern attempt] The Biden-era NPRM process stalled badly: the original notice of proposed rulemaking was published on May 21, 2024, and received approximately 43,000 public comments; DEA issued a notice of hearing on August 29, 2024, but the proceedings stalled almost immediately , and the hearing was ultimately postponed indefinitely after an ALJ interlocutory appeal over alleged DEA bias. - [2026-04-23] Under Trump's EO 14370, DOJ/DEA took a partial step, immediately moving only FDA-approved and state-licensed medical marijuana to Schedule III while explicitly leaving broader/recreational marijuana in Schedule I pending a new hearing — confirming the "whole plant" base-rate hurdle remains unmet. https://www.saul.com/insights/alert/dea-reschedules-fda-approved-marijuana-products-and-state-licensed-medical-marijuana - [2026-06-29 to 2026-07-15] The new expedited hearing before ALJ Derek Julius ran 11 days; that hearing has now concluded; from June 29 through July 15, DEA Chief ALJ Derek C. Julius heard 11 days of testimony, parties submitted post-hearing briefs, and the government asked the ALJ to recommend transfer, but the ALJ's recommended decision is still forthcoming and will not itself determine marijuana's final status — the DEA administrator must still issue a final determination after exceptions are considered. - [2026-09-23/29] Process has since stalled again: a GAO report found DEA scheduling-policy "gaps," and on Sept. 29, 2026 ALJ Julius granted anti-rescheduling parties a stay, pausing the matter indefinitely pending further briefing — explicitly undercutting earlier hopes of a recommendation before the midterms. https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/cannabis-rescheduling/news/15836261/dea-judge-halts-cannabis-rescheduling-process-may-reopen-hearing-record - [2026-09-11] As of publication, cannabis industry press confirmed this summer DEA held a hearing to determine whether recreational marijuana should become Schedule III but no decision has been issued, so recreational marijuana remains federally illegal . - [legal analyst estimate] Even optimistic industry/legal commentary (pre-stay) estimated if DEA meets its burden of proof and the process proceeds efficiently, a Final Rule could be published in the next year, though formal administrative hearings can be protracted — and that was before the late-September stay reset the clock further. - [legal analyst estimate, April 2026] Foley Hoag separately estimated the administrative hearing would compile a new evidentiary record on broader rescheduling, and if the process proceeded on DOJ's timeline, a final rule could be published as soon as late 2026, though litigation could extend that horizon — that "as soon as" case is now jeopardized by the September stay. BOTTOM LINE: The reference class (formal CSA rescheduling hearings for marijuana) has never once produced a completed full rescheduling in over 50 years, with the only prior comparable hearing taking roughly a decade end-to-end and ending in rejection; the current 2026 process, even on the administration's "expedited" track, has already slipped from an optimistic late-2026 final-rule target into an indefinite stay as of late September 2026, with no ALJ recommendation yet issued and a DEA Administrator decision, likely court challenges, and Federal Register publication still to come before a legally effective rule could exist. NOT FOUND: No public betting-market or pollster track record specifically on CSA rescheduling timelines (e.g., no PredictIt/Polymarket historical resolution data) was located; no official DEA/DOJ projected completion date for the restarted process after the September 29, 2026 stay was found.

YES means: the DEA/DOJ legally completes rescheduling of marijuana "as a whole" (including adult-use, not just FDA-approved or state-licensed medical cannabis) from Schedule I to Schedule III (or removes it from scheduling entirely) under the CSA, with that change taking actual legal effect before January 1, 2027. - [2026-09-28/2026-10-01] The GAO report that triggered the current stay "does not conclude that marijuana should remain in Schedule I or that Schedule II is more appropriate than Schedule III," and GAO itself found DEA's scheduling decisions "aligned with HHS recommendations in all 84 applicable cases it reviewed" — i.e., the stay's substantive basis for delaying is thin, raising the odds the ALJ denies the motion and moves quickly to a recommendation. https://harris-sliwoski.com/cannalawblog/marijuana-rescheduling-delayed/ - [2026-10-01] Dentons attorney Eric Berlin, commenting on the stay, said rescheduling itself is not stayed; the pause covers only whether to include the report , and Berlin expects a delay of anywhere from days to months and says a final rule in the fourth quarter of 2026 remains doable. https://thedalesreport.com/cannabis/legal-experts-break-down-aljs-cannabis-rescheduling-pause - [2026-10-01] ATACH president Michael Bronstein identified four concrete off-ramps available to the DEA by the October 13 deadline — deny the motion and lift the stay, take official notice of limited findings without new briefing, grant the motion as proposed, or admit the report on a modified schedule — several of which (denial, limited notice) would let the process resume almost immediately rather than restart. https://thedalesreport.com/cannabis/legal-experts-break-down-aljs-cannabis-rescheduling-pause - [2026-09-30] October 13 is explicitly characterized as "a deadline, not a halt" by commentator Anthony Varrell, meaning the stay has a hard-coded, near-term resolution point rather than an indefinite freeze, unlike the multi-year Biden-era stalls. https://thedalesreport.com/cannabis/legal-experts-break-down-aljs-cannabis-rescheduling-pause - [2026-09-30] Harris Sliwoski's own analysis concedes the administration could still get a certified ALJ recommendation "relatively quickly" if the motion is denied, since the proceeding was already "at the end of this process, awaiting the ALJ's certified recommendation" before the stay. https://harris-sliwoski.com/cannalawblog/marijuana-rescheduling-delayed/ - [2026-04] The Administration has already demonstrated willingness and legal capability to bypass slow notice-and-comment procedure entirely: Acting AG Blanche used the Single Convention treaty-power provision (21 U.S.C. §811(d)(1)) to reschedule medical/FDA-approved marijuana "without regard to" ordinary CSA findings and APA notice-and-comment, taking effect immediately upon signature/publication — a precedent-setting unilateral tool that remains legally available (though contested) for the broader "as a whole" rescheduling if the ALJ track stalls again. https://www.legal500.com/intelligence/united-states/cannabis-hemp/cannabis-rescheduling-arrives-with-limits-what-the-dojs-final-order-does-and-doesnt-do - [2026-04-23] DEA, not opponents, is the formal "proponent" of the broader Schedule III rule in the ALJ hearing, and the government's own post-hearing brief argued marijuana "no longer fits the statutory requirements for Schedule I" (per colleagues' Aug 17 citation) — meaning the agency driving the process wants a fast, affirmative outcome rather than delay. - [2026-10-01] Strong financial/political motivation for a near-term resolution persists: cannabis companies reportedly donated $11.5 million to a Trump-linked PAC, an incentive structure that argues for continued administration pressure to finish rescheduling before the political window narrows post-midterms, rather than letting it drift past 2026. https://harris-sliwoski.com/cannalawblog/marijuana-rescheduling-delayed/ - [2026-09-23] DEA Administrator Terrance Cole retains full discretion to adopt, modify, or override whatever the ALJ recommends and is the final decision-maker, not bound by the ALJ's timeline or substance — meaning that once the stay lifts, Cole could move straight to a final order without waiting for additional rounds of ALJ process, compressing the remaining timeline. https://natlawreview.com/article/inside-dea-marijuana-rescheduling-hearing-five-fights-will-decide-case BOTTOM LINE: The fastest realistic path to a YES is: (1) DEA's October 13 response leads the ALJ to deny or narrowly resolve the GAO-report motion and lift the stay within weeks; (2) ALJ Julius then issues a recommendation (plausibly for Schedule III, given DEA's own advocacy and the thinness of the GAO objection); (3) Administrator Cole, who is not bound by the recommendation and has sole final authority, swiftly adopts a Schedule III final rule for marijuana "as a whole," publishes it in the Federal Register, and it takes legal effect — a sequence legal commentators still called "doable" for Q4 2026 as of October 1, 2026, before the midterms potentially reduce administration urgency. NOT FOUND: No official DEA statement committing to a specific post-stay calendar; no confirmation that the October 13 GAO-report briefing will in fact be resolved quickly rather than spawn further supplemental briefing; no indication Administrator Cole has signaled his substantive view on Schedule III versus Schedule II.

YES means: marijuana (as a whole, including adult-use/recreational cannabis, not merely FDA-approved products or state-licensed medical cannabis) is legally and effectively removed from Schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act before January 1, 2027. - [2026-09-29] The DEA's Chief ALJ Derek Julius granted a stay of the broader rescheduling proceeding rather than denying the opponents' motion outright; "Accordingly, based on the nature [of] this motion, it is ORDERED that this matter is STAYED pending the motion's resolution," Julius wrote , with no restart date set. - [2026-10-01] Legal analysis (Harris Sliwoski) warns the delay could compound: "If supplemental briefing is allowed, however, the delay could extend well beyond October... I would not be surprised if the certified recommendation were pushed until after the midterm elections," which fall on November 3, 2026 — leaving under two months before the contract's deadline. - [2026-10-01] Even under the single most optimistic, no-further-delay scenario, industry timeline math shows the formal hearing rules require a cascade of fixed minimums — "Once the judge serves his recommendation, the DEA's hearing rules need at least 55 more days before a final order can take effect on the standard clock, so the recommendation has to reach the parties by November 6 for a broader rule to start in 2026." - [2026-10-01] That same analysis states plainly "No statute gives the judge a deadline," meaning there is no legal mechanism forcing a decision before year-end even if political pressure exists. - [2026-10-01] The DEA Administrator (not the ALJ) makes the binding final call and is explicitly not required to follow the judge's recommendation, adding another discretionary, undated step after any ALJ decision: "The DEA Administrator makes the final decision: and is not bound by the ALJ's recommendation." - [2026-09-30] A credible alternative "no" outcome exists even if the process moves: the Harris Sliwoski attorney flags that "Schedule II remains the alternative outcome that concerns me most... the evidence presented made Schedule I difficult to reconcile with marijuana's accepted medical use. But that does not mean the ALJ must recommend Schedule III. Schedule II remains a legally available and realistic alternative." A Schedule II recommendation would invite further exceptions/litigation, adding delay even if ultimately still "below Schedule I." - [2026-09-30] The only rescheduling of marijuana-as-a-whole components already in legal effect (the April 28 partial order) is itself under direct legal threat: the same attorney assesses "it is more likely than not that the D.C. Circuit will overturn it," citing concerns over the statutory authority and procedural approach used — meaning the one concrete regulatory action taken this cycle could be vacated rather than expanded. - [2026-10-01] Market pricing reflects growing doubt: Cannabis stocks sold off as the news spread. Trulieve fell about 14% on September 30, and the AdvisorShares Pure US Cannabis ETF dropped about 9% the same day. - [2026-09-30] The procedural trigger for the stay was a GAO report (GAO-26-108623) whose substance is about agency process gaps, not cannabis science, yet the judge still found it "merit in this argument that, if the record were to be extended to also include the GAO report, a stay would be warranted to await briefing on it" — showing the proceeding remains vulnerable to procedural tangents raised by anti-rescheduling intervenors, all seven of whom oppose rescheduling. - [2026-10-01] The structural imbalance in the hearing itself is noted as a persistent risk factor: "Schedule III proponents, other than DEA, were absent from the hearing, while opponents were given the opportunity to build a record against rescheduling," meaning every procedural motion filed so far has come from parties seeking delay or a weaker outcome, with no comparable pro-rescheduling intervenor pushing the clock forward. - [2026-10-04] No ALJ recommendation, no DEA Administrator final order, and no Federal Register publication date for a "marijuana as a whole" rule exists as of today; the only confirmed forward step is a filing deadline (October 13) for a motion response, which itself could trigger a further supplemental-briefing round rather than a resumption of the recommendation process. BOTTOM LINE: With the ALJ proceeding indefinitely stayed, no statutory deadline compelling action, a minimum ~55-day regulatory clock that is already nearly exhausted for any 2026 effective date, a non-binding Administrator review still to come, a real risk the outcome is Schedule II rather than a full Schedule I exit, and the only already-effective partial order under serious D.C. Circuit threat, the structural and procedural evidence strongly favors NO (full rescheduling not legally completed before January 1, 2027). NOT FOUND: No ruling yet on the October 13 motion deadline's outcome; no DEA Administrator public timeline; no D.C. Circuit decision date on the April order's validity; no official statement from the Trump administration post-stay reaffirming an end-of-2026 completion target.