On April 22, 2026, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a final order placing two categories of marijuana in Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA): (1) FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana, and (2) marijuana subject to a qualifying state-issued medical marijuana license). The order was issued under the Attorney General’s treaty-based scheduling authority in 21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(1), took effect immediately, and is accompanied by amendments to 21 CFR Parts 1300, 1301, 1308, and 1312.
Partial (Not Comprehensive) Rescheduling
Early media coverage has described the order as a rescheduling of “state-licensed marijuana,” but the order is considerably narrower. Because the Attorney General acted under Section 811(d)(1), which addresses only conduct required by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (the “Single Convention”), the Acting Attorney General had discretion over how far to reach and elected to limit rescheduling to Schedule III to only two categories of marijuana:
A new regulatory definition at 21 CFR § 1300.01 defines “state medical marijuana license” as a license issued by a state (or D.C. or federal territory) authorizing the licensee to manufacture, distribute, and/or dispense marijuana or marijuana-containing products “for medical purposes.”
The order is explicit about what is excluded: “any form of marijuana other than in an FDA-approved drug product or marijuana subject to a state medical marijuana license remains a Schedule I controlled substance.” That means marijuana that has not been channeled into an FDA-approved product, synthetic THC, and adult-use marijuana all remain in Schedule I.
Separately, Blanche announced on X that the DOJ was “[o]rdering a new, expedited hearing with set deadlines, to fully reschedule marijuana.” That proceeding is distinct from this order and will unfold on its own timeline.
Federal Registration
To continue U.S. compliance with the Single Convention, the rescheduling order creates a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) registration specifically for manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers of medical marijuana. This new registration mechanism appears designed to reduce duplication with existing state oversight:
Tax Relief
Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code disallows deductions and credits for any trade or business “consist[ing] of trafficking in controlled substances . . . in a Schedule I or II.” The order addresses 280E directly, acknowledging that state medical marijuana licensees “will no longer be subject to the deduction disallowance imposed by Section 280E” as a consequence of the rescheduling. However, the order expressly disclaims any determination regarding federal tax liability and explicitly advises licensees to consult tax counsel. No implementation guidance from the Department of Treasury or IRS accompanied the rescheduling order. Operators should not alter tax reporting positions without professional advice.
The order also addresses retrospective 280E relief in measured terms. It “encourages 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.” As such, the order does not authorize refund claims or amended returns, and it creates no enforceable right against the IRS, but it has invited the Department of Treasury to provide limited tax relief to operators.
What Comes Next: Unanswered Questions
The rescheduling order marks a historic development in federal cannabis policy. Like most strides in this space, however, questions about scope, implementation, enforcement, etc. loom.
To be clear, the CSA requires manufacturers and distributors of any controlled substance, including Schedule III substances, to obtain a registration from the DEA annually. A medical marijuana operator’s failure to obtain a DEA registration therefore bears federal compliance risk. This has been the case since the inception of state-legal marijuana markets.
By not addressing nuances in the varying state programs, the order creates potential compliance and documentation challenges that did not exist when all state-legal marijuana was uniformly Schedule I. Recordkeeping relating to medical-destined and adult-use-destined product may need to shift to reflect how the DEA and state agencies address this issue.
Judicial challenge for any policy change seems inevitable in today’s political climate, though no such action has yet been brought. Likewise, any process that results in rescheduling all marijuana will likely be contested, either administratively or judicially. Any such changes, therefore, should be carefully considered in business planning.
See more »
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. Attorney Advertising.
© Frantz Ward LLP
Refine your interests »
Join more than 70,000 authors publishing their insights on JD Supra
Back to Top
Explore 2026 Readers’ Choice Awards
Copyright © JD Supra, LLC