The agenda is set for the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) cannabis rescheduling hearing, and the chief administrative law judge (ALJ) won’t entertain communications from non-parties.
Derek C. Julius, the DEA’s new chief ALJ, set the hearing’s detailed schedule on June 24 for the government and seven anti-rescheduling participants to provide opening briefs, witness testimonies and cross-examinations, beginning on June 29 with the DEA as the proponent of the proposed rule to reclassify cannabis to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
While Julius said in a preliminary order that the DEA bears the burden of proof for the proposed rule that former Attorney General Merrick Garland signed in May 2024 under the Biden administration, the “DEA has not yet made a determination as to its views of the appropriate schedule for marijuana,” according to the proposed rule.
The forthcoming hearing is the result of President Donald Trump’s executive order directing his administration to “take all necessary steps to complete the rulemaking process … in the most expeditious manner.”
The schedule includes the following dates for the DEA and seven anti-rescheduling participants to present their opening arguments and witnesses:
- June 29-July 1: The government (DEA)
- July 2: National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA)
- July 6: Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM)
- July 7: DUID Victim Voices
- July 8: Kenneth Finn, M.D.
- July 10: Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI)
- July 13: Phillip A. Drum, Pharm.D.
- July 14: States of Nebraska, Idaho, Indiana and Louisiana (The States)
The schedule includes hour-by-hour details, with each day’s proceedings tentatively scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. and end by 5 p.m. Julius said he reserves the right to modify the schedule, but the hearing must conclude no later than July 15 under an order from U.S. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.
“While this schedule is meant to serve as a detailed guide for the hearing, parties may conclude examinations early or forgo cross or redirect examinations,” Julius wrote. “To the extent that a party concludes with its examination prior to the end of their scheduled time or forgoes examination, the hearing will proceed ahead of schedule to the next item for that day – provided that a designated party will not be required to begin its case-in-chief on a different date than the one assigned above. The ALJ will make other scheduling advancement determinations on a day-to-day basis as needed.”
The schedule comes after the DEA announced on June 18 its selection of the seven anti-rescheduling parties to participate in the hearing process, with DEA Administrator Terry Cole informing pro-rescheduling petitioners that they didn’t meet the “interested person” definition under the Code of Federal Regulations as “any person adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable.”
Although the proposed rule is for Schedule III, the DEA could ultimately issue a final rule for Schedule II or keep the Schedule I status quo following the hearing proceedings.
One of the rejected pro-rescheduling petitioners, Hemp for Victory, a veterans advocacy group, previously qualified as an interested person for the same proposed rule, meeting the same definition of an interested person, under former DEA Administrator Anne Milgram. But Blanche withdrew the Biden-era hearing process altogether in April, when he ordered a new hearing to commence under the Trump administration.
RELATED: Should DEA’s One-Sided Cannabis Rescheduling Hearing Be Reason for Concern?
NORML, a national cannabis reform advocacy group, also petitioned to participate in the forthcoming rescheduling hearing. After receiving a denial letter, the organization sent Cole an emergency request on June 19, asking him to reconsider the participation list, Marijuana Moment reported.
“Excluding NORML from the hearing would cause immediate and irreparable procedural prejudice, impair the completeness and balance of the administrative record, and disserve the public interest in a full and reasoned proceeding concerning the federal legal status of marijuana,” NORML Board Chair and counsel Joseph A. Bondy wrote in the request.
Bondy also argued that Cole had erred in his determination that NORML is not adversely affected or aggrieved by the proposed rule because he mischaracterized NORML’s actual position on the proposed rule in the rejection letter.
Before setting the hearing schedule, Julius addressed communications he received from non-parties. He issued a standing order on June 23 that the hearing’s participation lineup is final.
“The administrator of the DEA has conducted the interested person analysis and named seven interested parties (who, along with the government, make up the designated parties),” the ALJ wrote. “These designated parties are those entitled to appear in this matter. It is not for this tribunal to disturb the administrator’s analysis, nor will this tribunal entertain motions to do so.
“Furthermore, agency regulations are clear that only those designated parties that have been duly selected by the administrator to participate in this matter have proper standing to make submissions in this forum. All other submissions in this forum concerning this matter by non-parties lack standing and will not be considered.”
The hearing’s exclusion of pro-rescheduling participants means the DEA, which has yet to determine whether it supports the proposed rule, will serve as the lone proponent of the Schedule III proposal.
In addition, even though the proposed rule is for all cannabis to be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III under the CSA, Julius said in his preliminary order that he will not entertain evidence or testimony on state-licensed medical cannabis or FDA-approved cannabis products because Blanche’s April 2026 order already reclassified those products under Schedule III.
That means the DEA bears the burden to prove that nonmedical cannabis has “currently accepted medical use” in the U.S., because any substance classified at Schedule II or lower must pass that standard.
