DEA Judge Sets Rules for Cannabis Rescheduling Hearing

The federal hearing that will decide whether most of the U.S. cannabis market follows medical marijuana into a looser drug classification now has a rulebook. A Drug Enforcement Administration judge has fixed the procedures, the schedule, and the burden of proof for the proceeding, and the structure tilts toward a one-sided fight.

Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek C. Julius signed a preliminary order on June 18, 2026, governing the hearing that opens June 29, 2026 at a DEA facility in Arlington, Virginia. The order is the procedural framework, not a verdict: it moves no cannabis to a new schedule. It lays out who presents, when, for how long, and what the tribunal may and may not weigh.

That line matters. The Trump administration already reclassified one slice of the market in April 2026, when Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche moved state-licensed medical cannabis and FDA-approved cannabis drugs from Schedule I to the lighter Schedule III. The DEA has since begun registering and inspecting those medical operators. The June hearing is about everything the April order left behind.

What the hearing will — and won’t — decide

Julius drew the scope tightly. Because the medical and FDA-approved categories are already rescheduled, no testimony on them will be taken. The open question is whether, in the order’s words, “the remainder of marijuana” — the adult-use and recreational cannabis that makes up the bulk of state-licensed sales — should also drop to Schedule III.

For adult-use operators, this is the proceeding that counts. The April action gave them nothing: recreational cannabis stays a Schedule I substance, still saddled with the federal tax penalty that bars ordinary business deductions and still shut out of the registration benefits flowing to medical sellers. Whether any of that changes runs through this hearing.

The government carries the load. Julius wrote that it bears the burden of proof “as the proponent of the proposed rule” — meaning the DEA must build the case for its own reclassification. That posture traces back to the Department of Health and Human Services’ 2023 finding that cannabis has accepted medical use and a lower potential for abuse than Schedule I drugs.

A one-sided room

The DEA must defend its own rule, yet the only outside parties cleared to challenge it oppose rescheduling. DEA Administrator Terrance Cole picked seven participants earlier in June, including Smart Approaches to Marijuana, the drug-testing trade group National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association, four states including Nebraska and Idaho, and several anti-rescheduling doctors and advocates. Reform groups that asked to take part were turned away, because backing the change means they cannot claim to be harmed by it.

The result is an evidentiary record built almost entirely by skeptics. Each participant gets an assigned day, a 15-minute opening, and up to two witnesses; each may cross-examine the government’s witnesses for up to an hour, and the government may question theirs. The opponents cannot cross-examine one another. There are no closing arguments; parties file written briefs after the hearing instead.

The clock is short. The hearing runs from June 29 through no later than July 15, 2026, with a recess from July 3 to July 6 for the Independence Day holiday. With so little time for live testimony, Julius urged the parties to rely on sworn written statements. The sessions will not be televised or livestreamed, though members of the public may attend in person.

What to watch next

The days before the hearing are stacked with deadlines. The government had to enter its appearance by June 22, 2026; participants owe prehearing statements and witness lists by June 24, 2026 and must trade exhibits the following day. Julius will issue a day-by-day schedule before the proceeding opens.

None of this settles the outcome. After the record closes and briefs land, the judge issues a recommended decision and the DEA Administrator makes the final call, a sequence that can run well past the July end date. State regulators, meanwhile, are still waiting on basic guidance about how rescheduling reaches their markets.

The hearing is also unfolding under legal fire. Several challenges to the rescheduling effort have been consolidated before a federal appeals court, and opponents have asked the court to halt the process altogether. For operators waiting to learn whether recreational cannabis will finally shed its Schedule I status, the rulebook Julius just issued is the clearest sign yet of how — and how fast — the government means to get there.