Three States Join Fight Against DEA Marijuana Rescheduling as Deadline Looms

Three States File Last-Minute Objections

Nebraska, Kansas, and Idaho submitted formal comments opposing the DEA's rescheduling proposal on May 27, 2026, less than a week before the agency's comment period closes. The filings mirror arguments raised by other conservative-leaning states, focusing on enforcement conflicts and international drug treaty compliance. All three states maintain strict cannabis prohibitions. They've resisted hemp-derived intoxicant markets.

The timing is critical. The DEA's comment window for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) closes June 2, 2026. Late-stage objections from state attorneys general can complicate the agency's timeline for finalizing the rule, particularly if they raise novel legal questions requiring formal response.

Core Arguments: Enforcement Conflicts and Treaty Obligations

The three states argue that Schedule III rescheduling would undermine their ability to enforce state-level cannabis bans and violate the United States' commitments under the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach's filing emphasized that rescheduling would create "irreconcilable conflicts" between state prohibition statutes and federal regulatory frameworks that assume legal access pathways.

Moving cannabis to Schedule III would legitimize medical use claims while leaving state-level criminal penalties in legal limbo, the states contend. Schedule III includes ketamine and anabolic steroids.

Idaho's submission focused on treaty compliance, asserting that the 1961 convention requires cannabis to remain in the most restrictive category. International law scholars have contested that argument, noting the convention allows for domestic medical use frameworks. For context on the broader DEA process, see the CannIntel topic hub on DEA rescheduling.

What Happens Next

The DEA must review and respond to all substantive comments before issuing a final rule, a process that typically takes months and can extend past a year if objections trigger additional review. The agency hasn't committed to a timeline for finalization. State-level opposition doesn't carry veto power, but it can force the DEA to address legal and policy questions in the final rule's preamble, potentially delaying implementation.

Expect enforcement to vary. Even if the DEA finalizes Schedule III rescheduling, states retain authority to criminalize cannabis under their own statutes. The conflict between federal rescheduling and state prohibition will remain unsettled until courts weigh in or Congress acts. Watch for two signals: whether additional states file objections before the June 2 deadline, and whether the DEA extends the comment period in response to late-stage filings.