DEA’s Rescheduling Process Remains Stalled
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has yet to make substantive progress in the cannabis rescheduling process, leaving a pivotal policy initiative in limbo. Despite the granting of an interlocutory appeal in January 2025—intended to address concerns regarding improper communications during the rescheduling review—the agency has failed to establish a briefing schedule necessary to move forward. This continued inaction has created a bottleneck in the administrative process, delaying what many view as a long-overdue reevaluation of cannabis’s status under the Controlled Substances Act. Stakeholders across the public and private sectors remain uncertain about the timeline and trajectory of this important regulatory reform.
Legal Hurdles Remain Unaddressed
The interlocutory appeal at the center of the delay was prompted by allegations that the DEA engaged in prohibited ex parte communications with parties opposing cannabis rescheduling. Such communications, which occur outside the formal procedural framework, may undermine the fairness of administrative hearings and could violate federal administrative law. The appeal’s purpose is to ensure that the integrity of the rescheduling process is maintained. However, the DEA’s failure to establish a schedule for hearing briefs has effectively frozen the appeal process. Without a timeline or structured path forward, legal questions surrounding the fairness and transparency of the DEA’s procedures remain unresolved.
Leadership Transition Adds to the Delay
The lack of progress also reflects a broader issue of leadership instability within the agency. With the presidential nomination of Terry Cole as the next DEA Administrator still pending Senate confirmation, the agency continues to operate under the direction of Acting Administrator Derek S. Maltz. This transitional period has left the agency without definitive leadership, limiting its capacity to drive policy changes or respond effectively to high-profile regulatory matters like cannabis rescheduling. The absence of a confirmed administrator adds an additional layer of uncertainty to an already stalled process.
Industry and Regulatory Impacts
The consequences of the delay are far-reaching. For cannabis businesses, the rescheduling of cannabis represents a path to greater financial and operational legitimacy, including access to banking services, reduced tax burdens, and broader research opportunities. With no progress being made, these potential benefits remain out of reach. State regulators and legal markets are similarly impacted. Many states have developed robust legal cannabis frameworks, but these efforts are complicated by ongoing federal prohibition. The lack of clarity at the federal level hampers coordination, limits policy innovation, and places state programs in legal jeopardy. Investors and entrepreneurs also face a chilling effect due to the uncertain regulatory landscape. With billions of dollars at stake in the legal cannabis industry, prolonged inaction by federal agencies deters capital infusion and slows the pace of innovation.
Urgency for Federal Action
The current state of administrative inertia at the DEA reflects a critical juncture in federal cannabis policy. Without swift and structured action, the opportunity to align federal law with state-level reforms may be lost. The cannabis industry, already contending with complex legal challenges, now finds itself further burdened by procedural delays and a lack of regulatory direction. To restore confidence and demonstrate institutional accountability, the DEA will need to finalize its leadership transition and promptly establish a briefing schedule to address the pending legal appeal. Doing so would be a foundational step toward resolving the rescheduling issue and advancing meaningful cannabis reform in the United States.
