Relief, Finally? DEA Issues Order Expediting Cannabis Rescheduling to Schedule III

On April 22, 2026, a final order issued by the Acting Attorney General and the Drug Enforcement Administration took effect, fundamentally altering the federal regulatory landscape for marijuana. The order moves FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana and marijuana subject to qualifying state-issued medical marijuana licenses from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

Though a welcome and long hoped-for action, it is critical to note this is not a broad legalization of all adult use (recreational) cannabis sales. Nor does it legalize the controversial category of hemp-derived THC products.

This post summarizes the key provisions of this landmark action and its implications for stakeholders across the cannabis industry. We will follow up with more detailed analyses of the new order specific to various stakeholders and issues.

Highly Expedited Action

The DEA acted under 21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(1), which authorizes the Attorney General to control a substance under the schedule deemed most appropriate to satisfy U.S. obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This move permits the Attorney General to issue a scheduling order “without regard to” the findings and notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures that ordinarily apply under the CSA. Accordingly, the DEA took the position that the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment requirements do not apply to this action.

Scope of the Final Order

The rescheduling to Schedule III applies to two categories of marijuana:

  1. FDA-approved drug products containing delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) derived from the plant Cannabis sativa L., other than the mature stalks and seeds.
  2. Marijuana subject to a state medical marijuana license, defined as a license issued by a state entity authorizing the licensee to manufacture, distribute, and/or dispense marijuana or products containing marijuana for medical purposes.

The order also covers marijuana extracts, as defined in 21 CFR § 1308.11(d)(58), and naturally derived Δ9-THC to the extent they fall within the above two categories.

The DEA also announced an expedited hearing commencing June 29, 2026, to consider whether marijuana as a whole—not just FDA-approved and state-licensed medical products—is reclassified to Schedule III.

Several important exclusions apply:

  1. Critically, any form of marijuana that is neither in an FDA-approved drug product nor subject to a state medical marijuana license remains a Schedule I controlled substance. This leaves the cultivation and sale of recreational cannabis that dominates the state-licensed industry in legal limbo for the time being.
  2. The order does not apply to synthetically derived THC, which remains in Schedule I.
  3. It does not affect the status of hemp as defined in Section 7 U.S.C. § 16390.
  4. Nor does it affect the scheduling of previously rescheduled drug products such as Marinol and Syndros, or any previously scheduled synthetic cannabinoids.

Expedited Registration for State Licensees

Recognizing that forty U.S. states have now legalized the sale and use of marijuana for medical purposes under state law, the order establishes a new expedited federal registration pathway for entities holding state medical marijuana licenses.

State licensees may submit their existing state credentials as conclusive evidence of state-law authorization when applying for DEA registration as manufacturers, distributors, or dispensers. The Administrator must grant registration unless doing so would be inconsistent with the public interest under 21 U.S.C. § 823 or with the requirements of the Single Convention. A DEA registration will automatically suspend upon suspension, revocation, or expiration of the underlying state license.

To facilitate a smooth transition, the DEA will prioritize applications submitted within 60 days of publication, with a target of processing those applications within six months. Applicants who submit within that 60-day window may continue to operate under their state-issued licenses during the pendency of their application.

Regulatory Framework for State Licensees

The order contains several provisions designed to minimize regulatory burden on compliant state-licensed entities by deferring to existing state regulatory infrastructure:

  1. Prescriptions. State-authorized medical marijuana certifications or similar documents are sufficient to permit dispensing, provided they include the user’s name and address, are dated and signed on the day of issuance, and identify the issuing practitioner.
  2. Records and Reporting. The DEA will require only such reports, records, and order forms as are necessary to comply with federal statutory and treaty obligations, and will accept state-required records to the maximum extent permissible.
  3. Labeling, Packaging, and Security. Registrants may comply with state-law labeling, packaging, disposal, and physical-security requirements in lieu of otherwise applicable federal requirements, subject to inclusion of the statutory warning label required by 21 U.S.C. § 825(c).

Tax Implications Under Section 280E

One of the most significant practical consequences of the rescheduling relates to federal taxation. The order notes that, as a consequence of moving state-licensed medical marijuana to Schedule III, licensees will no longer be subject to the deduction disallowance imposed by Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which applies only to businesses trafficking in Schedule I or II controlled substances.

The Acting Attorney General further encouraged the Secretary of the Treasury to consider providing retrospective relief from Section 280E liability for taxable years in which a state licensee operated under a state medical marijuana license.

Notably, however, the order expressly states that nothing in the rule constitutes a determination regarding federal tax liability, and state licensees are advised to consult with tax counsel.

Key Takeaways

This final order marks a historic shift in the federal treatment of marijuana. For state-licensed medical marijuana operators, the rescheduling opens the door to DEA registration through an expedited pathway that leverages existing state regulatory infrastructure, potentially reduces or removes the punitive effects of Section 280E, and reduces duplicative federal compliance obligations. For pharmaceutical companies with FDA-approved marijuana products, the move to Schedule III eases regulatory requirements while maintaining robust federal oversight.

At the same time, stakeholders should recognize important limitations. Recreational marijuana remains squarely in Schedule I, as does any marijuana not covered by an FDA-approved product or a state medical marijuana license.

Synthetically derived THC is also unaffected.

What to Watch

The administrative hearing set to begin on June 29, 2026, will be the most significant near-term development to monitor. The outcome of that proceeding will determine whether marijuana as a whole — not just FDA-approved and state-licensed medical products — is reclassified to Schedule III.

Stakeholders should also watch for potential legal challenges to the Acting Attorney General’s use of treaty-implementation authority as the basis for the immediate rescheduling order, as this legal theory may face scrutiny in the courts. Finally, federal agencies such as the IRS, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the FDA may issue additional guidance clarifying how the rescheduling affects tax treatment, healthcare regulation, and product approval pathways.

We will continue to monitor these developments closely. Stakeholders with questions about how these changes may affect their operations, compliance programs, or research activities should not hesitate to reach out to Paul Josephson, Michael Schwamm, Tracy Gallegos or any member of our Cannabis and State Attorneys General teams.

NY Bill Would Allow Low-THC Drinks in Liquor Stores

New York State Senate Bill S9220 (2025-2026), introduced February 17, 2026, by Sen. Jeremy Cooney (D-Rochester), chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Cannabis, would allow liquor and wine stores to sell low-potency cannabis beverages.

Regulatory Framework

The bill vests joint authority in the State Liquor Authority and Office of Cannabis Management over this novel class of intoxicating beverages limited to 5 milligrams of delta-9 THC per serving. Products must be maintained in a separate, distinctly marked area from alcoholic beverages, with sales confined to persons 21 years or older.

Taxation Provisions

An excise tax of 9% applies to retailers’ purchases from distributors; a 13% retail tax burdens end purchasers. Revenues from the latter are apportioned primarily to the state Cannabis Revenue Fund, approximately one-third to the locality of sale, and one-thirteenth to the liquor authority.

Legislative Precedent

This measure succeeds S8575 (the “Hemp Beverage and Taxation Act”), also sponsored by Cooney and pending in committee since November 2025, which proposes Cannabis Control Board oversight of hemp-derived cannabinoid beverages (≤5mg THC/container) with a uniform 10% tax and parallel age/labeling restrictions. As of February 19, 2026, S9220 remains referred to the Senate Investigations and Government Operations Committee.

Trumps Signs Executive Order to Reschedule Cannabis: A Dramatic Shift in Federal Cannabis Policy

On December 18, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order to expedite the administrative process of rescheduling cannabis, marking one of the most dramatic shifts in federal cannabis policy in the past few decades.

Under current federal law, cannabis is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance—the most restrictive category of drugs.  Schedule I controlled substances are defined as having no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.  Schedule I substances include inherently dangerous drugs, such as heroin and LSD.

The Executive Order directs the Attorney General to expedite rescheduling cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III.  Schedule III controlled substances are defined as having a lower potential for abuse and currently accepted medical uses, including substances such as ketamine and Tylenol with codeine. 

The rescheduling process is handled through the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) and the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”).  In 2022, at the direction of President Biden, DEA and HHS commenced the rescheduling process.  Both HHS and the Department of Justice issued recommendations to reschedule cannabis, but the process eventually stalled, and there has been no movement on rescheduling since January 2025 until today. 

Rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III will not only allow for medical research into cannabis, one of President Trump’s main selling points in issuing the Executive Order, but may also provide long awaited relief to cannabis operators, owners, investors, and other industry participants.

One of the most prominent and immediate benefits of rescheduling will be the removal of cannabis from the clutches of Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code.  Section 280E disallows standard business deductions for businesses engaged in the trafficking of Schedule I or II controlled substances.  Once cannabis is rescheduled, cannabis operators will likely decrease their current tax liabilities and improve their financial viability. 

What rescheduling will NOT do is open up the door for interstate commerce and may not immediately increase the number of federally chartered banks open to banking in the industry as many are still waiting for passage of the SAFER Banking Act or similar legislation. FinCEN guidance is not impacted by the Executive Order, which means that onerous reporting and other obligations for banks will remain in place. As such, any impact to banking will likely be minimal, as banks’ compliance obligations will remain the same until such time that the SAFER Banking Act or similar legislation is passed by Congress.

The Executive Order also seeks to expand research and access to CBD products.  This comes on the heels of the funding bill passed to end the government shutdown, which included a controversial provision to close the loophole created by the 2018 Farm Bill and reclassify low-THC hemp products as controlled substances.  The ban on low-THC hemp products goes into effect in November 2026. 

While not full federal legalization, today’s Executive Order could mark the beginning of the end in draconian federal cannabis policy.  The rescheduling process will take some time, and the Executive Order could still be challenged by Congress and stake holders in the cannabis industry, but operators should remain cautiously optimistic.

NY OCM Issues Key Correction on 500 Foot Distance School Zone Requirement


The New York Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) has issued a significant correction to its previous guidance on how to measure the required 500-foot distance between retail cannabis dispensaries and schools. This change has immediate and potentially wide-ranging implications for both pending applicants and currently licensed dispensaries across New York State.

Prior Guidance
OCM had long advised applicants that the 500-foot proximity restriction should be measured in a straight line from the center of the nearest school entrance to the center of the dispensary’s main entrance—only considering entrances regularly used by patrons. In addition, this rule applied only when the dispensary and school were located on the same street or road.

Updated Measurement Standard
OCM recently stated that this method was incorrect and inconsistent with Cannabis Law § 72(6) which states that “No cannabis retail licensee shall locate a storefront within five hundred feet of a school grounds as such term is defined in the New York Education Law or within two hundred feet of a house of worship.” Section § 409(2) of the Education Law defines “school grounds” as “any building, structure and surrounding outdoor grounds, including entrances or exits contained within a public or private pre-school, nursery school, elementary or secondary school’s legally defined property boundaries as registered in a county clerk’s office.”

Reading the two sections together, OCM has adopted a revised standard that requires the licensee to measure a straight line from the dispensary entrance to the nearest point on the school property line —regardless of whether they are on the same road. This new and broader interpretation significantly expands the areas considered off-limits.

Current Impact
According to the OCM, the revised guidance will affect the following applicants/licensees (subject to change upon further analysis) :
• 44 pending applicants whose proposed locations may now be noncompliant.
• 108 licensed dispensaries.

Over 80% of the affected parties are in New York City, while the remainder are spread across the rest of the State.

OCM Support for Applicants and Licensees

The applicants that don’t comply with the distance requirements must find new, compliant locations to proceed with their applicants.

To assist affected applicants, OCM and Empire State Development have created a $15 million Applicant Relief Program to help cover:

  • Costs of finding a new location.
  • Capital improvements made to the original (now non-compliant) location

Applicants may receive provisional licenses while they secure new locations.


Support for Licensees

For those affected licensed dispensaries, many of which already operating, the Governor’s Office and OCM are pursuing legislation to allow these businesses to remain at their current locations.

However, as there is the risk this legislation may not pass and OCM cannot renew licenses at locations that do not comply with the new interpretation of Cannabis Law § 72 (6), licensees will need a new compliant location before the Cannabis Control Board can finalize license renewal.


Does SAFE Banking Have a Chance



Great analysis of the chances that the SAFE Banking Act becomes law from Howard Penney at Hedgeye Risk Management:

The MSOs rallied 7% last week on the back of a bipartisan group of lawmakers reintroducing the SAFE Banking Act. The bill has a 0% chance of passing without hearing from Senator Mitch McConnell. In reality, SAFE does not change much for the industry. Other reform elements around 280e taxes, interstate commerce, and an updated Cole memo are more impactful to the industry’s fundamentals. Unfortunately, lawmakers in Washington, DC, have had difficulty passing modest cannabis reform for several reasons, including the following:

    •  Playing Politics: The cannabis reform issue has become highly politicized, with Democrats typically favoring legalization and Republicans generally opposing it. This is because cannabis reform has become a highly controversial topic, with politicians more concerned with political posturing and pleasing their base than with finding common ground; this can make it difficult to pass any meaningful reform measures.
    • No consensus: Even among people who favor cannabis reform, there may be differing opinions regarding the strategy that should be utilized. Some people may push for marijuana to be fully legalized, while others may merely favor incremental reform measures such as decriminalization or the legalization of medical marijuana. Because of this, it may be challenging to arrive at a consensus that has the potential to gain enough support to enact legislation.
    • A seemingly insurmountable conflict: even though several states have decriminalized cannabis in some form, the drug is still Schedule 1, making it against the law on the federal level. Because of this, there is a potential for legislation at the state and federal levels to contradict one another, making it more challenging to enact effective rules and regulations.
    • Lobbying and special interests: The cannabis sector in prohibition is in its infancy and rapidly undergoing change; as a result, a significant number of conflicting interests and stakeholders are involved. Lobbying efforts by these organizations (esp. pharma, tobacco, and alcohol) can sway legislators’ attitudes about the matter at hand and make it more challenging to enact reform measures that might not serve the interests of the lobbying organizations.

In general, achieving cannabis reform in D.C. is a complicated subject incorporating various elements, including political, social, and economic considerations. Even while there may be widespread popular support for cannabis law reform, D.C. is unlikely to change the challenging process actually to bring about significant change.

New York City Introduces Several Local Laws Aimed at Helping to Control the Unlicensed Cannabis Industry in NYC

Two pieces of legislation were recently introduced in the New York City Council aimed at  controlling the unlicensed cannabis market in New York City.

The first bill  bill would prohibit knowingly leasing commercial premises to a tenant who uses the premises for distribution or sale of cannabis or cannabis products without a license. The first time that an unlicensed cannabis seller is found to be operating in leased commercial premises, the Sheriff, Police Department, or any other relevant agency would issue a warning to the owner of the premises. If an unlicensed cannabis seller is later found to be operating in the same commercial premises, the owner would be liable for civil penalties.  https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?From=Alert&ID=6165428&GUID=33A0F77B-950A-4A9E-8033-F0316A346404&Options=ID%7CText%7C&Search=cannabis

The second bill would require the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene  to collaborate with the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection  and any other relevant agency to create and implement a public awareness campaign on the dangers of purchasing cannabis or cannabis products from unlicensed cannabis retailers. The campaign would target minors and young adults and focus on the risks of consuming cannabis products adulterated with synthetic cannabinoids and other harmful substances and the risk of purchasing such products from unlicensed cannabis retailers .https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6165413&GUID=59A6FC8D-E54A-43D2-B621-906AA1B706A2&Options=&Search=

 

 

New York State Advertising Rules Effective Today

Effective March 22, 2023, New York’s cannabis advertising rules are now in place. These rules aim to protect public health, particularly minors, and ensure that cannabis advertising is truthful and not misleading.

    •  Cannabis advertisements cannot be displayed within 1,000 feet of a school or daycare center.
    • Ads cannot target individuals under 21 years of age or depict minors, toys, characters, or cartoons.
    • Advertising cannot claim cannabis is safe or healthy or that it has curative or therapeutic effects unless supported by substantial evidence.
    • Ads cannot contain false, misleading, or deceptive information.
    • The warning statement “This product may be intoxicating and may be habit-forming” must be included in all cannabis advertisements.
    •  Promotions, such as giveaways or coupons, are prohibited except in licensed dispensaries.
    • Advertising cannot be displayed on any public transportation or property owned or leased by the state or local government.
    • All ads must include the New York State Department of Health’s “Know the Facts” educational campaign website address.

Could the NY conditional adult use retail dispensary program (CAURD) be in jeopardy?

A Maine law requiring all owners of medical marijuana businesses to be residents of the state was recently struck down by the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which ruled that the statute is a violation of the “Dormant Commerce Clause” of the United States Constitution, which prohibits states from passing legislation that restricts interstate trade. In its opinion (Northeast Patients Group et al. v. United Cannabis Patients and Caregivers of Maine, the Appellate Court upheld a lower court ruling that the residency requirement is an unconstitutional restriction on interstate trade.
Under the Maine’s medical marijuana program, all directors or officers of a licensed medical cannabis dispensary are required to be residents of the state. Interestingly, Maine had already dropped its residency requirement for its adult-use market following an earlier legal challenge that was also based on the Dormant Commerce Clause but it sought to keep it in place for its medical cannabis program.
This could be a problem for NY’s new adult use cannabis program, as of the requirements is that the potential licensees must have been arrested (or are related to someone who was arrested) for a marijuana related crime in New York and must also have been a New York resident at the time of the arrest. This could like be deemed a residency requirement and thus lead to challenges not only to any individual licenses grants but the entire CAURD program.
Equally or possibly even more problematic is the fact that this ruling could also open the door to legal challenges to a variety of other State laws banning the exporting or importing of cannabis from other states, as the same rationale invalidating the residency requirements could come, as disallowing cannabis exports and imports between states could be construed as similarly placing unreasonable restrictions on interstate commerce.

 

NY State Department of Taxation Creates New Webpage with Information on the Adult-use Cannabis Excise Tax.

New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has created a new webpage with information on the Adult-use cannabis products excise tax.

This cannabis excise tax will apply to both:

    • Distributors of adult-use cannabis products on sales of retailers, and
    • Adult-use retailers on sales to retail customers. 

If you plan to sell adult use cannabis you must register with the Department of Taxation (which is in the process of developing an online registration process and other guidance.   More information is available on the NYS Department of Taxation website  (https://www.tax.ny.gov/bus/auc/) 







NY Adult 

Key Cannabis Industry Projections and Trends from the New Frontier Data’s Recently Released 2022 U.S. Cannabis Report

Key Cannabis Industry Projections and Trends from the New Frontier Data’s Recently Released 2022 U.S. Cannabis Report

    • With a combined 148 million Americans living across those 19 adult-use states, and 248 million living across the 39 medical-use states, 44% of American adults now have access to legal adult use cannabis, and nearly three-quarters (74%) of the country now have access to legal medical cannabis in some form. Conversely, 89 million Americans (26% of the U.S. population) live in states where possession and use of cannabis remain illegal.
    • The US legal marijuana industry could surpass $72 billion by 2030 (assuming that an additional 18 states will legalize adult-use marijuana or comprehensive medical marijuana programs by then (with the current legal states reaching $57 billion by 2030), up from $32 billion this year.
    • Self-reported usage rates have risen sharply since 2012, and if this is sustained, the number of U.S. consumers will grow from 47 million in 2020 to 71 million by 2030.
    • U.S. medical markets continue to expand, with the number of registered patients forecast to increase to 5.7 million in 2030 (1.6% of the adult population).
    • Assuming legalization in all 18 potential markets by 2030, 47% of total demand would be met by the legal cannabis purchases, up from 27% in 2021, indicating continued disruption of illicit markets.
    • Despite strong state-level momentum, the near-term prospects for federal reform are dim, but a limited measure, like cannabis banking reform, is possible following the 2022 mid-term elections.

© 2009- Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress