President Donald Trump’s pick to take the permanent reins of the Department of Justice (DOJ) declined to say whether he supports rescheduling adult-use cannabis and reducing enforcement penalties when pressed by a U.S. senator.
Todd Blanche, who currently serves as the U.S. acting attorney general after Trump removed Pamela Bondi as attorney general in April, answered written questions for the record on July 20 from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee overseeing his confirmation hearing process.
Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., inquired about Blanche’s April 22 order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cannabis products from Schedule I to III under the Controlled Substances Act, inquiring about his decision to forgo a traditional notice-and-comment period and administrative law judge hearing.
“Why was this decision made?” Padilla asked.
“The Department of Justice delivered on President Trump’s promise to expand Americans’ access to medical treatment options,” Blanche wrote. “This rescheduling action allows for research on the safety and efficacy of this substance, ultimately providing patients with better care and doctors with more reliable information.”
Included in Blanche’s April order, he defended his decision to expedite the rule, claiming that Section 811(d)(1) of the CSA provided him “several legally viable scheduling options” to satisfy U.S. international treaty obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, referring to the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel’s (OLC) opinion from 2024 suggesting that he could bypass administrative procedures in certain instances.
In May, nine anti-rescheduling parties filed petitions for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenging the order as unlawful.
And in June, two of those anti-rescheduling parties also asked the D.C. Circuit to stay Blanche’s Schedule III order pending the outcome of the review.
“This case involves a brazen agency overreach in which the acting attorney general ignored restrictions on his authority set by Congress – and a binding decision of this court – to carry out one of the most sweeping reductions in restrictions on a dangerous narcotic in the history of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA),” according to the stay motion filed by a national drug-screening company and an aspiring cannabinoid pharmaceutical company.
“This court made clear that the bypass cannot be invoked when the attorney general is simply deciding to move a drug between two schedules under the CSA, either of which would comply with treaty obligations,” the motion states.
While that lawsuit plays out, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) wrapped up an administrative law judge hearing on July 15 that allowed seven anti-rescheduling parties to offer witnesses to testify against a proposed rule to reschedule all cannabis (beyond just medical) to Schedule III.
President Joe Biden’s administration initiated the proposed rule after the FDA and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) conducted an extensive scientific and medical evaluation in 2023, determining that cannabis has currently accepted medical use in the U.S. and has a lower potential for abuse and dependence liability than Schedule I and II substances.
Blanche ordered the administrative law judge hearing to allow interested parties to offer evidence on the merits of the Biden-era proposed rule after Trump ordered his administration in December 2025 to “take all necessary steps” to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act “in the most expeditious manner.”
After the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on Blanche’s nomination on July 15 and 16, Padilla submitted QFRs inquiring about Blanche’s support for the proposed rule to move all cannabis to Schedule III and whether he supports “reducing penalties for possessing and selling marijuana.”
Blanche dodged those questions.
“If confirmed, I will give the matter careful consideration after conferring with all relevant stakeholders, including DEA personnel,” he wrote.
While the DEA served as the proponent of the proposed rule to reschedule all cannabis and has traditionally decided whether substances should be scheduled, rescheduled and decontrolled, that authority is delegated to the DEA by the attorney general, who can, if he or she chooses, retain that authority in the “first instance” (see 28 U.S.C. 509, 510).
Padilla also mentioned how Blanche’s April order that immediately reclassified medical cannabis stated that Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code will no longer apply to state-licensed medical cannabis businesses.
“Does that policy change apply to businesses that hold both medical and adult-use licenses?” the senator asked.
“Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code applies to businesses engaged in trafficking in controlled substances in Schedule I or II,” Blanche wrote.
Finally, Padilla inquired about the DOJ’s September 2025 guidance that “rescinded” Biden-era guidance, a shift that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Wyoming indicated would allow federal law enforcement agencies to start “rigorously” prosecuting cannabis offenses that occurred on federal land, such as national parks.
Darin Smith, whom the Senate confirmed in May 2026 as the U.S. Attorney for Wyoming, made the September 2025 guidance claims, which former U.S. attorneys under the Biden administration disputed as a change in administrative policies.
Smith, whom Democrats called inherently “unqualified” for the position, faced scrutiny over his qualifications days before his confirmation in May, after three federal judges dismissed felony grand jury indictments against nine defendants, citing misconduct by Smith that could have prejudiced the jurors, The Associated Press reported.
Padilla asked Blanche if he supported the 2025 guidance that Smith suggested allowed U.S. attorneys to start taking a more hands-on approach to prosecuting individuals for simple cannabis possession crimes.
“As a general matter,” Blanche wrote, “I think it is important to empower our U.S. attorneys to enforce all laws as appropriate and in accordance with relevant facts and law to keep the American public safe.”
