DEA ALJ Hearing Record May Undercut Marijuana Rescheduling Effort

Hearing Record Raises Statutory Questions

Testimony presented during the DEA's administrative law judge hearing has surfaced questions about whether marijuana meets the statutory criteria for Schedule III placement. The hearing was convened after objections to the agency's August 2024 notice of proposed rulemaking. Opponents presented evidence challenging the rescheduling recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services.

Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney presided over the proceeding, which concluded testimony in July 2026. The hearing record now awaits the judge's recommended decision. The DEA Administrator will use it to finalize or modify the proposed rule. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, the agency must address substantive objections raised during the hearing process.

Schedule III Criteria Under Scrutiny

The Controlled Substances Act requires Schedule III substances to have accepted medical use and abuse potential lower than Schedule I or II drugs. Witnesses opposing rescheduling presented evidence questioning whether marijuana's federal status as a prohibited substance allows for the "accepted medical use" finding required by statute. FDA-approved applications don't exist for whole-plant cannabis.

The hearing record also includes testimony on international treaty obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which classifies cannabis as a Schedule I narcotic. DEA has historically cited treaty compliance as a factor in scheduling decisions. For full background on this story, see the CannIntel topic hub on DEA rescheduling.

Timeline and Next Steps

Judge Mulrooney's recommended decision is expected by late September 2026, with a final DEA rule anticipated in the fourth quarter. The Administrator isn't bound by the ALJ's recommendation but must provide a reasoned explanation for any departure from the hearing record. A recommendation against rescheduling would create significant procedural obstacles for the agency, potentially requiring a new notice-and-comment cycle, industry observers note.

If the record supports concerns raised by opponents, DEA could withdraw the proposal, modify it to recommend a different schedule, or proceed with Schedule III placement while addressing objections in the final rule's preamble. The political variable nobody can model? Whether a new administration in 2027 will direct DEA to abandon or accelerate the rulemaking.