Three Republican AGs Sue to Block Federal Cannabis Rescheduling

Three Republican attorneys general have gone to federal court to void the Trump administration’s order moving state-licensed medical cannabis into a less restricted federal drug category — a challenge that, if successful, would unwind the reclassification that took effect in late April and return medical operators and patients to their pre-April federal status.

Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, Indiana’s Todd Rokita, and Louisiana’s Liz Murrill filed a petition on May 22, 2026, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The court this week consolidated its challenge with a parallel suit filed earlier this month by anti-cannabis organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana and the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association, both represented by a law firm where former U.S. Attorney General William Barr — who served as attorney general during Trump’s first administration — is a partner. Named as respondents in both cases are the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, and DEA Administrator Terrance C. Cole.

What the Lawsuit Argues

The three states press two core legal claims. The first is procedural: Blanche issued the rescheduling order without running a public notice-and-comment period — the mechanism Congress established to require agencies to solicit input from affected parties before major regulatory changes take effect. The AGs argue that bypassing that process makes the order defective and beyond the legal authority available to the attorney general under the federal drug-scheduling law.

The second claim involves a pointed reading of international treaty law. The states contend the order conflicts with the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the international treaty that governs how signatory nations classify and control narcotic substances. What makes this argument notable is that Blanche specifically cited the same treaty as the basis for his authority to act immediately — arguing the Convention grants the attorney general power to reschedule a controlled substance to bring U.S. law into conformity with treaty obligations, without first completing the standard formal rulemaking process. The three AGs are contesting that interpretation directly, arguing that the very treaty Blanche invoked as a legal shortcut actually bars what he did.

The petition asks the D.C. Circuit to declare the order unlawful and vacate it entirely.

The Order Under Challenge

The Justice Department announced the rescheduling order on April 23, 2026, implementing President Trump’s December 2025 executive order directing federal officials to move marijuana to a less restrictive schedule as quickly as the law allowed. Blanche’s order moved state-licensed medical cannabis and FDA-approved marijuana products from Schedule I — the most restrictive federal drug category, which treats a substance as having no accepted medical use — to Schedule III, which recognizes medical value and substantially lower abuse risk. The order took effect on April 28, 2026.

For state-licensed operators, the shift carried immediate material consequences: it removed the federal tax provision that had for decades prevented cannabis businesses from deducting ordinary operating expenses, opened a new DEA registration pathway for operators seeking full federal compliance, and eased restrictions on clinical research. The change also sent ripples through state regulatory systems; Alabama briefly paused its own automatic rescheduling mechanism in the days after the federal order took effect, as regulators assessed how it interacted with state law.

The April order covered medical cannabis only. Adult-use cannabis remained in Schedule I, with a new DEA administrative hearing set to begin June 29, 2026, to address whether broader rescheduling is warranted. Both pro- and anti-rescheduling parties have filed notices to participate in that proceeding — a separate track from the court challenge, but one that would also be disrupted if the D.C. Circuit vacates the underlying order.

Opposition from Medical Cannabis States

The political context here complicates the straightforward framing of three Republican officials backing a conservative president. Two of the three states have active or emerging medical cannabis programs of their own. Louisiana has a functioning medical marijuana program; Murrill represents patients who could benefit from the rescheduling she is now challenging in court. Nebraska voters approved a medical cannabis initiative in November 2024 by a wide margin, though implementation has moved slowly — in part because of resistance from Hilgers, who has publicly opposed cannabis legalization as a matter of policy.

That contradiction has drawn sharp criticism. Advocates in Nebraska have accused Hilgers of using state resources to challenge a federal reform that his own constituents voted to advance. Democratic opponents in the state’s attorney general race have cast the lawsuit as a direct override of a democratic mandate.

The court challenge is not the only institutional pressure on the rescheduling order. A House subcommittee has separately advanced a spending measure that would block federal agencies from taking further steps to implement rescheduling — a congressional parallel to what the AGs are pursuing in the D.C. Circuit. Recent polling shows majority support for cannabis legalization across party lines, but that sentiment has not produced unified backing for the reform within GOP institutional structures.

Until the D.C. Circuit acts, the rescheduling order remains in effect, and Schedule III status holds for state-licensed medical operators. The AGs have not publicly moved for an emergency stay of the order pending the challenge.