23
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
As we close the book on 2025 and look ahead, we can’t help but feel a strong sense that we’ve been here before.
On the one hand, with the federal government potentially eradicating consumable hemp in November and the president ordering urgent action on marijuana rescheduling in December, it may not be an exaggeration to say the final 50 days of 2025 were among the most consequential of the past 50 years for the cannabis industry.
On the other hand, rescheduling and the fate of hemp-derived consumables always seem to dominate discussions in our space. Look no further than our 2025 predictions piece [https://www.buddingtrendsblog.com/2025/01/predictions-2025-to-be-a-very-big-year-in-cannabis/]. Even though the topics feel familiar, there is noticeably more urgency in the air this time around. Rescheduling is far from certain but seems more likely than ever. And the entire consumable hemp industry is on the brink of extinction if Congress does not change the law in the coming year.
Our hit rate on predictions last year wasn’t where we wanted it to be, so we’re due. In that spirit, we once again share our premonitions about the year in cannabis: the 2026 edition.
We and many others have written about President Trump’s much-touted Dec. 18 ceremony and executive order on rescheduling marijuana and increasing access to certain hemp products. We won’t again pontificate on what this could mean for the industry; if you’re curious, please read our earlier posts. Instead, we’ll explain why we believe the rescheduling process may truly be realized in the coming year.
President Trump ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III on an “expedited” basis. The expediency is possible this time, at least initially, because one important step has already occurred: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended rescheduling in 2023.
That means the DEA can move more quickly through its notice-and-comment rulemaking phase under the Administrative Procedure Act. That process began in May 2024, when the DEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register.
Public comments followed, and in droves, totaling a record of 43,000 submissions. Now the DEA must resume (if it ever started) its review and consideration of those comments and respond as appropriate. The agency cannot ignore significant comments when issuing a final rule.
So while this administration has a head start, important legal steps remain. After the comment evaluation and response period concludes, procedural challenges must be resolved, administrative hearings may be conducted, and a final rule issued. That rule will almost certainly be subject to judicial review, along with the process that produced it. Lawsuits are also expected, and some have already been filed.
It’s worth noting that Attorney General Bondi has not historically been an ally of the marijuana industry in her prior roles. We believe, however, that any reticence will be outweighed by her interest in keeping her current job.
In sum, while President Trump’s executive order does not itself reschedule marijuana, it clearly signal this administration’s desire to make rescheduling a priority and to achieve it as expeditiously as possible. We expect substantive movement, if not a final rule, in 2026. The wild card, as always, is litigation and its ability to delay or disrupt the process.
An unexpected component of President Trump’s rescheduling executive order was the lifeline it threw to the hemp industry. The order instructs senior White House staff to work with Congress to redefine what constitutes legal hemp, just a month Congress, during a November 2025 government reopening, , effectively banned consumable hemp products.
We’ve already discussed what the order says. The question now is: What practically changes?
We predict the outright ban that has kept hemp operators up at night will not come to fruition. That said, we do not anticipate a return to the consumable hemp industry’s 2023-24 glory years. The most likely outcome is a hemp landscape dominated by CBD-forward and low-THC products, with higher-THC products relegated to state-legal marijuana programs.
The state-legal cannabis industry has, in most states, struggled to stay above water at best, and has experienced steady declines at worst. These trends have driven contraction, consolidation and downsizing. There are outliers, to be sure, but by and large the industry badly needs a shot in the arm.
Enter rescheduling. The tax relief alone, namely, removing marijuana from the reach of Section 280E, would open operators’ access to capital, potentially leading to growth, expansion and healthier economic activity.
Still, because we don’t expect the full effects of rescheduling to be felt in 2026, we predict the year will largely serve as a planning period. Operators will begin preparing for a Schedule III world and evaluating how best to maximize the opportunities rescheduled marijuana may offer.
This one may seem like a bit of a flyer. What happens when a Supreme Court with an expansive view of the Second Amendment encounters a case involving marijuana, perhaps not the current majority’s product?
We recently wrote about the court’s refusal to review the Sirois case, which likely would have required the justices to decide whether the Commerce Clause permits Congress to regulate purely intrastate marijuana markets. Our view is that while the court may be interested in clarifying Commerce Clause jurisprudence, it is far less eager to do so in a way that appears to liberalize marijuana policy.
So how will the court resolve these competing interests? We believe it will lean into its recent Second Amendment rulings and conclude that marijuana users may not categorically prohibited from gun ownership. We’ll be watching closely to see whether any language in such an opinion encourages, or discourages, broader challenges to federal marijuana laws.
More Upcoming Events
Sign Up for any (or all) of our 25+ Newsletters
You are responsible for reading, understanding, and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free-to-use, no-log-in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates, or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys, or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws, the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317. If you would like to contact us via email please click here.
Copyright ©2025 National Law Forum, LLC
Find Your Next Job !
As we close the book on 2025 and look ahead, we can’t help but feel a strong sense that we’ve been here before.
On the one hand, with the federal government potentially eradicating consumable hemp in November and the president ordering urgent action on marijuana rescheduling in December, it may not be an exaggeration to say the final 50 days of 2025 were among the most consequential of the past 50 years for the cannabis industry.
On the other hand, rescheduling and the fate of hemp-derived consumables always seem to dominate discussions in our space. Look no further than our 2025 predictions piece [https://www.buddingtrendsblog.com/2025/01/predictions-2025-to-be-a-very-big-year-in-cannabis/]. Even though the topics feel familiar, there is noticeably more urgency in the air this time around. Rescheduling is far from certain but seems more likely than ever. And the entire consumable hemp industry is on the brink of extinction if Congress does not change the law in the coming year.
Our hit rate on predictions last year wasn’t where we wanted it to be, so we’re due. In that spirit, we once again share our premonitions about the year in cannabis: the 2026 edition.
We and many others have written about President Trump’s much-touted Dec. 18 ceremony and executive order on rescheduling marijuana and increasing access to certain hemp products. We won’t again pontificate on what this could mean for the industry; if you’re curious, please read our earlier posts. Instead, we’ll explain why we believe the rescheduling process may truly be realized in the coming year.
President Trump ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III on an “expedited” basis. The expediency is possible this time, at least initially, because one important step has already occurred: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended rescheduling in 2023.
That means the DEA can move more quickly through its notice-and-comment rulemaking phase under the Administrative Procedure Act. That process began in May 2024, when the DEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register.
Public comments followed, and in droves, totaling a record of 43,000 submissions. Now the DEA must resume (if it ever started) its review and consideration of those comments and respond as appropriate. The agency cannot ignore significant comments when issuing a final rule.
So while this administration has a head start, important legal steps remain. After the comment evaluation and response period concludes, procedural challenges must be resolved, administrative hearings may be conducted, and a final rule issued. That rule will almost certainly be subject to judicial review, along with the process that produced it. Lawsuits are also expected, and some have already been filed.
It’s worth noting that Attorney General Bondi has not historically been an ally of the marijuana industry in her prior roles. We believe, however, that any reticence will be outweighed by her interest in keeping her current job.
In sum, while President Trump’s executive order does not itself reschedule marijuana, it clearly signal this administration’s desire to make rescheduling a priority and to achieve it as expeditiously as possible. We expect substantive movement, if not a final rule, in 2026. The wild card, as always, is litigation and its ability to delay or disrupt the process.
An unexpected component of President Trump’s rescheduling executive order was the lifeline it threw to the hemp industry. The order instructs senior White House staff to work with Congress to redefine what constitutes legal hemp, just a month Congress, during a November 2025 government reopening, , effectively banned consumable hemp products.
We’ve already discussed what the order says. The question now is: What practically changes?
We predict the outright ban that has kept hemp operators up at night will not come to fruition. That said, we do not anticipate a return to the consumable hemp industry’s 2023-24 glory years. The most likely outcome is a hemp landscape dominated by CBD-forward and low-THC products, with higher-THC products relegated to state-legal marijuana programs.
The state-legal cannabis industry has, in most states, struggled to stay above water at best, and has experienced steady declines at worst. These trends have driven contraction, consolidation and downsizing. There are outliers, to be sure, but by and large the industry badly needs a shot in the arm.
Enter rescheduling. The tax relief alone, namely, removing marijuana from the reach of Section 280E, would open operators’ access to capital, potentially leading to growth, expansion and healthier economic activity.
Still, because we don’t expect the full effects of rescheduling to be felt in 2026, we predict the year will largely serve as a planning period. Operators will begin preparing for a Schedule III world and evaluating how best to maximize the opportunities rescheduled marijuana may offer.
This one may seem like a bit of a flyer. What happens when a Supreme Court with an expansive view of the Second Amendment encounters a case involving marijuana, perhaps not the current majority’s product?
We recently wrote about the court’s refusal to review the Sirois case, which likely would have required the justices to decide whether the Commerce Clause permits Congress to regulate purely intrastate marijuana markets. Our view is that while the court may be interested in clarifying Commerce Clause jurisprudence, it is far less eager to do so in a way that appears to liberalize marijuana policy.
So how will the court resolve these competing interests? We believe it will lean into its recent Second Amendment rulings and conclude that marijuana users may not categorically prohibited from gun ownership. We’ll be watching closely to see whether any language in such an opinion encourages, or discourages, broader challenges to federal marijuana laws.
More Upcoming Events
Sign Up for any (or all) of our 25+ Newsletters
You are responsible for reading, understanding, and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free-to-use, no-log-in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates, or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys, or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws, the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317. If you would like to contact us via email please click here.
Copyright ©2025 National Law Forum, LLC