State-Driven Federal Rescheduling: How States Could Force DEA Action

Executive Summary

A new federal bill introduced in Congress on June 12, 2026, would fundamentally restructure drug scheduling authority in the United States by allowing states to trigger mandatory federal rescheduling reviews. The proposed legislation represents a dramatic shift from the current top-down framework established under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, where the Drug Enforcement Administration and Food and Drug Administration hold exclusive authority over scheduling decisions. Under this bill, if a threshold number of states legalize or reschedule a substance like cannabis or psilocybin, the federal government would be required to initiate a formal rescheduling process. The measure arrives as 38 states have enacted some form of cannabis legalization, creating an unprecedented gap between state and federal law. Sponsors argue the bill addresses federalism concerns and reflects evolving scientific consensus, while opponents warn it could undermine uniform drug policy and create regulatory chaos. The legislation faces significant hurdles in both chambers but signals growing congressional frustration with the pace of administrative rescheduling efforts.

Why This Matters

This bill could resolve the most significant federalism conflict in modern American drug policy, affecting $33.6 billion in annual state-legal cannabis sales and millions of patients. The current Schedule I classification of cannabis under 21 U.S.C. § 812 creates operational nightmares for state-licensed businesses. Cannabis operators cannot deduct ordinary business expenses under Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, forcing effective tax rates above 70 percent in some cases. Banks refuse accounts due to federal money laundering concerns under 18 U.S.C. § 1956, pushing the industry toward dangerous cash operations. Medical researchers face DEA licensing barriers that have limited clinical trials for two decades. For patients, federal prohibition means no interstate transport of medicine, no coverage under federal health programs, and potential loss of federal housing or employment. Veterans receiving care through the Department of Veterans Affairs cannot receive cannabis recommendations from VA physicians, despite state legalization. The conflict affects approximately 128 million Americans living in adult-use states and an estimated 6.4 million registered medical cannabis patients nationwide. State governments have invested billions in regulatory infrastructure—licensing systems, testing laboratories, enforcement agencies—that exists in legal limbo. Tax revenue from state cannabis programs exceeded $3.77 billion in 2025, funding schools, infrastructure, and social equity programs that could face federal asset forfeiture under current law. The pharmaceutical industry, hemp producers, and psychedelic therapy advocates all watch this legislation closely, as the mechanism could apply to MDMA, psilocybin, and other substances currently undergoing state-level reform.

Background and History

The tension between state and federal drug authority has roots in the constitutional structure of American federalism, but the modern crisis began with California's Proposition 215 in 1996.

The Controlled Substances Act Framework (1970-1996)

Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, establishing five schedules based on abuse potential, accepted medical use, and safety profile. The statute vested scheduling authority in the Attorney General, who delegated operational control to the DEA, with the FDA providing binding scientific and medical evaluations under 21 U.S.C. § 811(b). The CSA placed cannabis in Schedule I alongside heroin and LSD, defined as substances with high abuse potential, no accepted medical use, and lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. This classification occurred despite the 1972 Shafer Commission recommendation to decriminalize possession and the American Medical Association's objections to the medical use determination. For 26 years, this federal framework operated with minimal state-level challenge. States could impose stricter penalties but lacked political will to contradict federal prohibition.

State Medical Cannabis Programs (1996-2012)

California voters approved Proposition 215 on November 5, 1996, by 56 percent, establishing the nation's first medical cannabis program. The Compassionate Use Act permitted patients with physician recommendations to possess and cultivate cannabis for eight specified conditions, directly conflicting with federal Schedule I status. The Clinton administration responded with threats to revoke DEA registrations of recommending physicians. In Conant v. Walters (2002), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled such threats violated First Amendment protections for physician-patient communication, but left the underlying Supremacy Clause question unresolved. The Supreme Court addressed federal enforcement authority in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), holding that Congress could regulate intrastate cannabis cultivation under the Commerce Clause even in medical contexts. Justice Stevens wrote for the 6-3 majority that homegrown cannabis for personal medical use substantially affected interstate markets in the aggregate, bringing it within federal regulatory power. The decision confirmed federal supremacy but did not require states to enforce federal law. By 2012, 18 states and the District of Columbia had enacted medical cannabis programs despite Raich. The Obama administration issued the Ogden Memo (2009) and Cole Memo (2013), deprioritizing federal prosecution of state-compliant medical cannabis operations—an enforcement forbearance policy rather than legal reconciliation.

Adult-Use Legalization and the Modern Crisis (2012-2026)

Colorado and Washington voters approved adult-use legalization on November 6, 2012. The Cole Memo's eight enforcement priorities effectively created a détente: states could license and regulate cannabis commerce if they prevented youth access, interstate diversion, and cartel involvement. The Trump administration rescinded the Cole Memo on January 4, 2018, through the Sessions Memo, restoring full prosecutorial discretion. Though few federal prosecutions materialized, the policy whipsaw demonstrated the fragility of enforcement-based solutions. Congress has repeatedly declined to deschedule cannabis legislatively. The MORE Act passed the House in December 2020 (228-164) and again in April 2022 (220-204) but stalled in the Senate. The Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, introduced in July 2021 by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, never received a floor vote. Administrative rescheduling efforts have moved glacially. The DEA received a Health and Human Services recommendation to reschedule cannabis to Schedule III in August 2023, triggering a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in May 2024. As of June 2026, the rescheduling remains in administrative limbo with no final rule issued, despite 43,000 public comments and multiple congressional hearings.

Emergence of State-Driven Rescheduling Proposals (2024-2026)

Frustration with administrative delays spawned new legislative approaches. Representative Earl Blumenauer introduced the State-Based Cannabis Regulation Act in March 2024, which would exempt state-legal cannabis from federal enforcement but maintain Schedule I status. The bill gained 87 cosponsors but never reached committee markup. State attorneys general from 23 legalization states sent a joint letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland on September 14, 2025, urging completion of the rescheduling process and warning of "constitutional crisis" if federal-state conflicts persisted. The letter cited Tenth Amendment concerns and requested formal guidance on interstate commerce issues. The current bill introduced June 12, 2026, represents the first attempt to statutorily mandate federal responsiveness to state-level scheduling decisions, inverting the traditional hierarchy established in the CSA.

Key Players

Congressional Sponsors

The bill's sponsors have not been publicly identified in available reporting as of June 12, 2026, but the legislation likely emerged from the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, co-chaired by Representatives Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Dave Joyce (R-OH). Blumenauer has introduced cannabis reform legislation in every Congress since 2013 and announced his retirement effective January 2025, making this potentially a legacy effort by allied members. Senate champions typically include Cory Booker (D-NJ), who co-authored the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, and Ron Wyden (D-OR), chair of the Senate Finance Committee with jurisdiction over 280E tax issues.

Drug Enforcement Administration

The DEA has defended its scheduling authority against state encroachment for decades. Administrator Anne Milgram testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 3, 2026, that "scheduling decisions must be driven by science and treaty obligations, not popular vote," according to prepared remarks. The agency argues that the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 requires Schedule I classification for cannabis, though legal scholars dispute this interpretation. DEA Administrative Law Judges would likely conduct any mandatory rescheduling hearings triggered by the bill, following procedures established in 21 C.F.R. § 1308. The agency has historically slow-walked such proceedings; the MDMA rescheduling petition filed in 2001 took three years to deny.

Food and Drug Administration

The FDA provides binding scientific and medical evaluations for scheduling decisions under 21 U.S.C. § 811(b). The agency's August 2023 recommendation to reschedule cannabis to Schedule III marked a historic shift, concluding that cannabis has accepted medical use for anorexia, nausea, and pain based on review of state programs and clinical literature. FDA Commissioner Robert Califf has emphasized the need for clinical trial data meeting traditional approval standards, creating tension with state medical programs that rely on physician discretion rather than indication-specific approvals.

Multi-State Operators

Publicly traded MSOs including Curaleaf, Trulieve, Green Thumb Industries, and Verano Holdings have combined market capitalization exceeding $8.2 billion as of June 2026. These companies operate in 15-20 states each under fragmented licensing regimes. Curaleaf CEO Matt Darin said in a May 2026 earnings call that "federal rescheduling remains our top policy priority" due to 280E tax burdens that reduced the company's 2025 net income by an estimated $147 million. The industry has invested over $4.3 million in federal lobbying since 2020 through trade groups including the Cannabis Trade Federation and National Cannabis Roundtable.

State Governments

California, the nation's largest cannabis market with $5.3 billion in 2025 sales, has led multi-state coordination efforts. Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation in September 2025 directing the state attorney general to explore legal challenges to federal preemption under the anti-commandeering doctrine established in Murphy v. NCAA (2018). New York launched adult-use sales in December 2022 and has issued over 300 dispensary licenses, representing $1.2 billion in state investment in regulatory infrastructure. Governor Kathy Hochul testified before the House Judiciary Committee in January 2026 that "federal inaction forces states to build parallel regulatory systems at enormous cost." Ohio voters approved adult-use legalization via Issue 2 on November 7, 2023, with 57 percent support, bringing the total number of adult-use states to 24. The state's Division of Cannabis Control has projected $400 million in annual tax revenue once the market matures.

Opposition Groups

Smart Approaches to Marijuana, led by former Representative Patrick Kennedy, opposes rescheduling and characterizes state-driven approaches as "circumventing scientific process." The organization argues that increased THC potency in modern cannabis products—averaging 23 percent in Colorado dispensaries versus 4 percent in 1990s seizure samples—justifies Schedule I restrictions. The National Sheriffs' Association has opposed federal deference to state legalization, citing concerns about impaired driving and youth access. Sheriff Jim McDonnell of Los Angeles County testified before Congress in 2019 that "federal law provides essential tools for combating interstate trafficking that state-only regulation cannot address."

Legal and Regulatory Framework

The bill would amend the Controlled Substances Act to create a new triggering mechanism based on state actions, fundamentally altering the administrative procedure established in 21 U.S.C. § 811.

Current Scheduling Authority

Under existing law, the Attorney General may initiate scheduling proceedings based on DEA findings, HHS petition, or petition from any interested party under 21 U.S.C. § 811(a). The statute requires the Attorney General to request a scientific and medical evaluation from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, whose findings on eight factors are binding regarding medical and scientific matters. The eight factors enumerated in 21 U.S.C. § 811(c) include: actual or relative potential for abuse; scientific evidence of pharmacological effect; current scientific knowledge; history and current pattern of abuse; scope, duration, and significance of abuse; risk to public health; psychic or physiological dependence liability; and whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a controlled substance. Scheduling decisions follow Administrative Procedure Act requirements in 5 U.S.C. § 553, including notice-and-comment rulemaking. Interested parties may request DEA hearings under 21 C.F.R. § 1308.44, conducted by Administrative Law Judges with appeals to the Administrator and ultimately to federal courts of appeals under 21 U.S.C. § 877. This process has taken between 18 months and nine years for contested substances. The DEA denied rescheduling petitions for cannabis in 1972, 1995, 2001, and 2011, each time concluding that insufficient evidence of accepted medical use existed.

Proposed State-Trigger Mechanism

While the full bill text has not been published as of June 12, 2026, the mechanism reportedly would require the Attorney General to initiate rescheduling proceedings when a threshold number of states have legalized or rescheduled a substance. The threshold likely ranges from 15 to 25 states based on similar federalism proposals in areas like interstate compacts. The bill presumably would mandate completion of the rescheduling review within a fixed timeframe—likely 12 to 24 months—to prevent administrative delay tactics. It may include a rebuttable presumption that substances legal in multiple states have "accepted medical use" under the Schedule I criteria, shifting the burden of proof to the government. Constitutional questions arise under the non-delegation doctrine and separation of powers. Congress cannot delegate legislative authority without an "intelligible principle" to guide executive discretion, according to Mistretta v. United States (1989). Allowing state actions to trigger mandatory federal proceedings may test this boundary, though courts have upheld conditional legislation in other contexts.

Supremacy Clause and Anti-Commandeering

The Supremacy Clause in Article VI establishes that federal law "shall be the supreme Law of the Land," preempting conflicting state law. However, the anti-commandeering doctrine prevents Congress from compelling states to enforce federal regulatory programs, as established in Printz v. United States (1997) and Murphy v. NCAA (2018). State cannabis legalization does not violate the Supremacy Clause because states merely decline to criminalize conduct that remains federally prohibited—they do not affirmatively authorize what federal law forbids. This distinction allowed state programs to proliferate despite Gonzales v. Raich. The proposed bill would not commandeer state enforcement resources but would require federal agencies to respond to state policy choices. This represents a novel federalism structure without clear precedent in drug policy, though analogous frameworks exist in environmental law where state actions can trigger federal review under the Clean Air Act.

Treaty Obligations

The United States is party to three international drug control treaties: the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 (as amended by the 1972 Protocol), the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988. The Single Convention requires parties to limit cannabis to medical and scientific purposes, which the DEA cites as mandating Schedule I or II classification. However, Article 28 allows parties to permit cannabis cultivation for industrial purposes (hemp) and personal consumption, which Canada and Uruguay have done without treaty withdrawal. Legal scholars including Professor John Walsh at Georgetown University have argued that rescheduling to Schedule III or below would not violate treaty obligations, as the conventions allow domestic flexibility in implementation. The bill's impact on treaty compliance would depend on the final scheduling outcome rather than the process change itself.

State-by-State Breakdown

As of June 2026, 38 states have enacted medical cannabis programs and 24 have legalized adult use, creating the critical mass that prompted this federal legislation.

Adult-Use States (24 jurisdictions)

State	Legalization Date	Possession Limit	2025 Sales
Alaska	Feb 2015	1 oz	$143M
Arizona	Jan 2021	1 oz	$1.48B
California	Jan 2018	1 oz	$5.26B
Colorado	Jan 2014	1 oz	$1.87B
Connecticut	Jan 2023	1.5 oz	$312M
Delaware	Apr 2023	1 oz	$89M
Illinois	Jan 2020	30g (residents)	$1.93B
Maine	Oct 2020	2.5 oz	$267M
Maryland	Jul 2023	1.5 oz	$421M
Massachusetts	Nov 2018	1 oz	$1.64B
Michigan	Dec 2019	2.5 oz	$2.13B
Minnesota	Aug 2023	2 oz	$178M
Missouri	Feb 2023	3 oz	$1.12B
Montana	Jan 2022	1 oz	$298M
Nevada	Jul 2017	1 oz	$923M
New Jersey	Apr 2022	1 oz	$1.47B
New Mexico	Apr 2022	2 oz	$512M
New York	Dec 2022	3 oz	$1.21B
Ohio	Aug 2024	2.5 oz	$687M
Oregon	Oct 2015	1 oz	$1.09B
Rhode Island	Dec 2022	1 oz	$156M
Vermont	Oct 2022	1 oz	$94M
Virginia	Jul 2021*	1 oz	N/A
Washington	Jul 2014	1 oz	$1.34B

*Virginia legalized possession in July 2021 but has not yet implemented retail sales as of June 2026, with the legislature deadlocked on regulatory framework.

Medical-Only States (14 additional jurisdictions)

Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia maintain medical-only programs. Florida represents the largest medical-only market with $2.1 billion in 2025 sales serving over 873,000 registered patients. Oklahoma operates the nation's most permissive medical program, with over 2,400 dispensaries serving a population of 4 million—a per-capita dispensary rate five times higher than Colorado. The state issues medical cards for any condition a physician deems appropriate, creating a de facto adult-use market through medical licensing.

Non-Legal States (12 jurisdictions)

Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming maintain full prohibition, though several have decriminalized possession or enacted limited CBD-only programs. Idaho and Kansas represent the strictest prohibition states, with no medical exceptions and active prosecution of possession offenses. Both states have filed lawsuits against neighboring legalization states, alleging increased interstate trafficking. Nebraska v. Colorado was dismissed by the Supreme Court in March 2016 for lack of standing.

Federal Enclaves and Tribal Lands

The District of Columbia legalized possession and home cultivation in February 2015, but Congress has blocked commercial sales through annual appropriations riders since 2014. Residents may possess up to 2 ounces and cultivate six plants but cannot purchase from licensed retailers, creating a "gifting economy" of legal ambiguity. Over 350 federally recognized tribes have considered cannabis programs under sovereignty principles, with approximately 15 operating commercial cannabis businesses as of June 2026. The Justice Department's 2014 tribal guidance applied Cole Memo principles to tribal lands but was rescinded alongside the Cole Memo in 2018, leaving legal uncertainty.

Market and Business Implications

State-driven federal rescheduling could unlock $12 billion in annual value for cannabis operators through 280E tax relief alone, according to industry analysts.

Internal Revenue Code Section 280E

The most immediate business impact involves IRC § 280E, which prohibits businesses trafficking in Schedule I or II controlled substances from deducting ordinary business expenses. Cannabis operators can deduct cost of goods sold under the Tax Court's Olive v. Commissioner (2015) ruling but cannot deduct rent, salaries, marketing, or other operating expenses. Curaleaf reported $1.87 billion in revenue for 2025 with effective tax rate of 71 percent due to 280E, compared to the 21 percent corporate rate for non-cannabis businesses. Rescheduling to Schedule III would eliminate 280E application, potentially increasing industry-wide net income by 40-60 percent according to Viridian Capital Advisors. Green Thumb Industries disclosed in its 2025 10-K filing that 280E restrictions cost the company approximately $187 million in additional tax liability. CEO Ben Kovler said in March 2026 earnings guidance that "Schedule III rescheduling would be immediately accretive to earnings and allow reinvestment in expansion and research."

Banking and Capital Access

The Bank Secrecy Act requires financial institutions to file Suspicious Activity Reports for transactions involving proceeds of illegal activity under 31 U.S.C. § 5318(g). Because cannabis remains federally illegal, banks face potential prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (money laundering) and 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity). The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued guidance in 2014 allowing banks to serve cannabis businesses if they file SARs and conduct enhanced due diligence, but most major banks decline the compliance burden. As of March 2026, only 683 banks and credit unions actively served cannabis clients out of over 10,000 federally insured institutions, according to FinCEN data. The SAFE Banking Act has passed the House seven times since 2019 but stalled in the Senate over demands to include social equity provisions and expungement. Federal rescheduling would not automatically resolve banking issues, as cannabis would remain illegal under the Controlled Substances Act even in Schedule III, but it would reduce compliance risk and potentially encourage broader participation.

Interstate Commerce

Current state programs operate as closed-loop systems with seed-to-sale tracking prohibiting interstate transfer. This creates massive inefficiencies, with cultivation-heavy states like Oklahoma experiencing wholesale flower prices below $100 per pound while supply-constrained states like New York see prices above $2,000 per pound. Federal rescheduling combined with state-driven policy could enable interstate commerce under the dormant Commerce Clause, which prohibits states from discriminating against out-of-state economic interests. In Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas (2019), the Supreme Court struck down residency requirements for liquor licenses as violating the Commerce Clause. Cannabis interstate commerce would require either congressional authorization or complete federal legalization. The bill's state-trigger mechanism does not directly address this issue, but rescheduling to Schedule III or below could enable FDA regulation similar to alcohol under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, creating a pathway for interstate transfer.

Pharmaceutical Development

Only one cannabis-derived pharmaceutical has received FDA approval: Epidiolex (cannabidiol oral solution) for seizures associated with Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, approved in June 2018. The drug underwent traditional Phase I-III clinical trials costing manufacturer GW Pharmaceuticals over $300 million. Schedule I classification creates research barriers including DEA manufacturing licenses, single-source supply from the University of Mississippi, and institutional review board hesitancy. Rescheduling to Schedule III would maintain prescription requirements but ease research access, potentially accelerating development of cannabinoid pharmaceuticals for PTSD, chronic pain, and other indications. Jazz Pharmaceuticals acquired GW Pharmaceuticals for $7.2 billion in May 2021, betting on expanded cannabinoid pipelines. CEO Bruce Cozadd said in a June 2026 investor presentation that "federal rescheduling would enable the research necessary to develop indication-specific cannabinoid medicines meeting FDA gold standards."

MSO Consolidation and Capital Formation

U.S. cannabis companies cannot list on major exchanges like NYSE or NASDAQ due to federal illegality, instead trading on Canadian exchanges or over-the-counter markets with limited liquidity. Market capitalization of the top five MSOs totaled $8.2 billion as of June 2026, down from $22 billion in February 2021 during the SPAC boom. Institutional investors including pension funds and mutual funds largely avoid cannabis due to federal illegality and fiduciary concerns. Rescheduling could open access to institutional capital, enabling consolidation and professionalization. Cowen analyst Vivien Azer projected in May 2026 research that "Schedule III rescheduling could trigger $15-20 billion in M&A activity within 18 months as institutional buyers enter the sector."

What Experts Say

Legal scholars, industry analysts, and policy advocates have offered sharply divided assessments of state-driven rescheduling mechanisms. Professor Robert Mikos at Vanderbilt Law School, author of "Marijuana Law, Policy, and Authority," described the bill as "a creative federalism solution that respects both state experimentation and federal coordination authority" in a June 2026 interview with Law360. Mikos noted that similar state-trigger mechanisms exist in environmental law, where California emissions standards can effectively set national policy through market pressure. Sam Kamin, professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law and former member of Colorado's Amendment 64 Implementation Task Force, cautioned that "mandatory rescheduling based on state counts could produce inconsistent results if states later reverse legalization" according to a June 13, 2026 statement to Marijuana Moment. Kamin suggested the bill should include stability requirements, such as maintaining legalization for a minimum period before triggering federal review. The Brookings Institution's John Hudak, who has written extensively on cannabis federalism, argued in a June 2026 policy brief that "Congress should resolve scheduling through direct legislation rather than outsourcing the decision to state referendum results." Hudak noted that drug scheduling involves international treaty obligations and public health considerations beyond state competence. Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana and former drug policy advisor in the Obama administration, characterized the bill as "an end-run around scientific process that prioritizes political expediency over public health" in a June 12, 2026 press release. Sabet pointed to rising cannabis use disorder rates and emergency department visits in legalization states as evidence that expanded access creates harms. The American Civil Liberties Union's national political director, Aamra Ahmad, said in a June 2026 statement that "any rescheduling effort must include expungement and resentencing for the hundreds of thousands serving time for conduct now legal in most states." The ACLU has advocated for complete descheduling rather than rescheduling to ensure criminal justice reform. Industry analyst Matt Karnes of GreenWave Advisors projected in a June 13, 2026 client note that "the bill faces long odds in the current Congress but signals growing bipartisan frustration with DEA delays." Karnes estimated less than 15 percent probability of passage in 2026 but noted the legislation could gain momentum if the administrative rescheduling process continues to stall.

What's Next

The bill faces a multi-stage legislative process with key decision points in committee markup, floor votes, and potential reconciliation with competing approaches. The legislation will be referred to the House Judiciary Committee and House Energy and Commerce Committee based on jurisdictional overlap. Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) has not publicly supported cannabis reform, though Ohio's voter-approved legalization may influence his position. Energy and Commerce has jurisdiction over FDA and public health aspects. A companion bill will likely be introduced in the Senate, referred to the Judiciary Committee chaired by Dick Durbin (D-IL). Senate consideration typically requires 60 votes to overcome filibuster, necessitating significant Republican support. Potential Republican supporters include Rand Paul (R-KY), who has backed cannabis banking reform, and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), though Wyoming maintains prohibition. The bill could be attached as an amendment to must-pass legislation such as appropriations bills or the National Defense Authorization Act, a tactic used for cannabis provisions in previous Congresses. The SAFE Banking Act was included in the House version of the America COMPETES Act in February 2022 but stripped in conference committee. Key dates to watch include:

• July 2026: Expected committee hearings in House Judiciary and Energy and Commerce
• September 2026: Potential markup and committee votes before August recess
• November 2026: Midterm elections could reshape congressional composition and reform prospects
• December 2026: Lame-duck session offers final opportunity for passage in current Congress
• January 2027: New Congress convenes; bill would need reintroduction if not enacted

The administrative rescheduling process continues in parallel. The DEA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Schedule III rescheduling remains pending with no announced timeline for a final rule. DEA Administrator Milgram testified in March 2026 that the agency is reviewing over 43,000 public comments and conducting additional analysis, suggesting a final rule may not issue until late 2026 or 2027. If the administrative process completes before the bill passes, the legislation's relevance could shift from cannabis to other substances. Multiple states have decriminalized psilocybin, with Oregon implementing licensed psilocybin therapy in June 2023 and Colorado launching a similar program in 2025. MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD has advanced through FDA Phase III trials, with potential approval expected in 2027. The bill could establish a precedent for state-driven federal drug policy reform extending beyond cannabis to psychedelics, kratom, and other substances undergoing state-level experimentation.

Further Reading

• Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. - Full text of the federal drug scheduling statute: https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/
• DEA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Cannabis Rescheduling (May 2024) - Federal Register docket with public comments: https://www.federalregister.gov/
• HHS Recommendation to Reschedule Cannabis (August 2023) - Scientific and medical evaluation submitted to DEA: https://www.hhs.gov/
• Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) - Supreme Court decision on federal authority over intrastate cannabis: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/1/
• Congressional Research Service,