Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

DOJ Moves Certain Marijuana Products to Schedule III, Sets June Rescheduling Hearing

By Kathryn J. Russo on April 23, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The U.S. Department of Justice issued an Order on April 22, 2026 immediately placing all FDA-approved marijuana products and marijuana products regulated by a state medical marijuana license in Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

A second order also signed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche sets a June 29, 2026 hearing to consider the broader rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III.

Under the federal CSA, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) classifies drugs into five distinct categories, or schedules, depending on the drug’s acceptable medical use and its potential for abuse or dependence. As the drug schedule changes, so does the abuse potential. Schedule I drugs are defined as having no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule V represents drugs with the least potential for abuse.

The DEA has classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug since the inception of the CSA in 1970. In May 2024, the DOJ issued a proposed rule to reschedule marijuana to Schedule III. Schedule III drugs are defined as drugs with a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence. Some examples of Schedule III drugs are Tylenol with codeine, ketamine, buprenorphine, and anabolic steroids. The CSA requires that such a change be made through formal rulemaking on the record after an opportunity for a hearing.

The DEA announced on April 23, 2026, that it will hold a hearing on the proposed rescheduling of marijuana on June 29, 2026. The hearing will conclude no later than July 15, 2026. The purpose of the hearing is to “receiv[e] factual evidence and expert opinion regarding” whether marijuana should be transferred to Schedule III of the CSA. Any “interested person” (defined as “any person adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable” under 21 U.S.C. 811) who wishes to participate in the hearing must file a written notice of intention to participate by May 24, 2026.

At the same time, DOJ issued a final order dated April 22, 2026, that places marijuana products approved by the FDA as well as marijuana products that are subject to state-issued medical marijuana licenses in Schedule III of the CSA. The FDA-approved marijuana products are Epidiolex, Marinol, Syndros, and Cesamet, all available by prescription. The final order also establishes an expedited registration process for entities holding state medical marijuana licenses, enabling them to engage in the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of marijuana for medical purposes under federal law.

Unlicensed marijuana crops, bulk marijuana, and any marijuana or marijuana extract that has not been incorporated into an FDA-approved product (or state-licensed marijuana that does not satisfy the requirements relating to purchase and sale of marijuana by DEA) will remain in Schedule I of the CSA. The final order does not apply to synthetic THC or hemp.

Impact on Employers

Employers should view any employee’s use of state-issued medical marijuana or FDA-approved marijuana like other prescription medications. This includes engaging in the interactive process and the “direct threat” analysis for safety-sensitive positions under the Americans with Disabilities Act and comparable state laws.

Employers regulated by Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations should monitor revisions to DOT’s drug and alcohol testing regulations. Those regulations only permit drug testing for Schedule I and II drugs. DOT-regulated employers should continue testing for marijuana until DOT announces otherwise.

Finally, making marijuana a Schedule III drug still leaves a conflict with state recreational marijuana laws (adult-use laws) that permit use of marijuana without a medical prescription. For employers who conduct drug testing, many different state and local laws continue to regulate marijuana drug testing.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions.

Photo of Kathryn J. Russo Kathryn J. Russo

Kathryn J. Russo is a principal in the Long Island, New York, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. She is a firm resource on the legal issues implicated in workplace drug and alcohol testing arising under federal, state and local laws, as well as…

Kathryn J. Russo is a principal in the Long Island, New York, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. She is a firm resource on the legal issues implicated in workplace drug and alcohol testing arising under federal, state and local laws, as well as substance abuse management and marijuana laws’ impact on employers.

Kathryn helps clients navigate workplace problems involving drugs and alcohol. She regularly works with corporate counsel and human resources executives to develop substance abuse policies to comply with federal drug and alcohol testing regulations (including all agencies of the U.S. Department of Transportation), as well as state and local drug and alcohol testing laws and marijuana laws in all 50 states. In addition, she defends employers in litigation where drug and alcohol test results are at issue, and frequently conducts “reasonable suspicion” training for employers in connection with their substance abuse policies. Kathryn also advises employers on leave and disability management issues arising when employees seek leave or other accommodations related to substance abuse rehabilitation.

Read more about Kathryn J. RussoEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Cannabis
  • Blog:
    Drug and Alcohol Testing Law Advisor
  • Organization:
    Jackson Lewis P.C.
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo