DEA, opponents file new briefs in cannabis rescheduling hearing

New briefs land on the rescheduling hearing record

The DEA and opponents of rescheduling each put new written arguments into the federal cannabis hearing, according to Marijuana Moment's Oct. 14, 2026 newsletter.

Both the newsletter's headline and its summary confirm the filings but don't spell out their contents. We haven't independently reviewed the briefs, and this report doesn't characterize their arguments. That limit matters.

What's established is the procedural frame. The hearing stems from the DEA's May 2024 notice of proposed rulemaking to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, which followed a recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services. Briefs are where each side commits its legal theory to the record, and that record is what any final rule would have to withstand.

South Dakota's attorney general addresses medical programs

South Dakota's attorney general said rescheduling doesn't impact the state's medical marijuana program, according to the newsletter.

Where or in what format the attorney general made the point isn't stated in the newsletter summary, so the venue is unverified here. The substance is still worth tracking. State officials in South Dakota and elsewhere have had to answer a basic question: does a federal schedule change rewrite state law?

Generally, no. State medical and adult-use programs operate under state statute, and a Schedule III designation wouldn't by itself legalize marijuana under federal law or repeal state rules. A state attorney general saying so in public is a useful signal to regulators and licensees who've been unsure what to expect.

Why the filings matter to operators

A final move to Schedule III would end the 280E tax penalty for state-licensed marijuana businesses, which is why every filing in this proceeding carries financial weight.

Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code bars deductions for businesses that traffic in Schedule I and II substances. Schedule III status would lift that bar. For multistate operators, the difference shows up directly in effective tax rates and cash flow.

Not everything changes, though. Schedule III substances still require FDA approval or DEA registration to be lawfully distributed, and state-licensed dispensaries don't currently fit neatly into either pathway. Opponents have room to press that gap, and a hearing record is where they'd do it.

It's hard to ignore the math: a tax rule tied to a single schedule designation is now being decided by briefs.

Other cannabis policy items in the same newsletter

The Oct. 14 newsletter also flagged a Kansas governor candidate backing legalization, an NFL-funded study on cannabis stigma and a hemp THC drinks op-ed.

Kansas is a campaign story rather than a federal one. According to the newsletter, a candidate for governor called for legalizing marijuana. Kansas has no adult-use market, so the position is a ballot-box signal and not a policy change.

On the NFL-funded study, which concerns cannabis stigma, the summary gives no findings, methodology or authors, so none are reported here. The hemp item is an op-ed on THC drinks, which is a separate regulatory fight from marijuana scheduling but one that overlaps on the same federal agencies and the same lobbying dollars.

What the hearing record can and can't settle

Briefs frame the legal dispute, but they don't decide it.

Three questions will determine how much weight the new filings carry:

• Whether the presiding officer accepts the DEA's account of the HHS recommendation.
• Whether opponents persuade the record that marijuana's abuse potential or lack of accepted medical use blocks Schedule III.
• Whether any ruling is appealed, which would add months before operators see a tax change.

For full background on the proceeding, see the CannIntel topic hub on DEA cannabis rescheduling.

Operators shouldn't book 280E relief into forecasts yet. Filing briefs is a long way from a final rule. Not close.

Next up: the contents of the DEA and opposition briefs, and any response deadline set for them. We'll report both once the filings are reviewed directly.