| The federal marijuana rescheduling hearings have concluded. After months of testimony, thousands of pages of evidence, and testimony from both government and non-government witnesses, Americans Against Legalizing Marijuana (AALM) believes the administrative record demonstrates that the Department of Justice has failed to carry its burden of proving that marijuana satisfies the statutory requirements for placement in Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. AALM expects Administrative Law Judge Derek C. Julius to recognize that the government’s own evidence frequently undermined its position and that the legal and scientific record does not support rescheduling. The Government Failed to Meet Its Burden The central question before the Administrative Law Judge was never whether some people believe marijuana has medical value or whether states have chosen to legalize its use. The question is whether the federal government established, through competent scientific evidence and consistent application of the Controlled Substances Act, that marijuana satisfies the legal requirements for Schedule III. The hearing record demonstrates that it did not.
Instead of presenting clear scientific evidence establishing accepted medical use, the government relied heavily upon policy conclusions contained in the Department of Health and Human Services’ 2023 recommendation while defending a dramatic departure from decades of DEA precedent. Even DEA Witnesses Strengthened the Case Against Rescheduling Ironically, some of the testimony most damaging to the government’s position came from its own witnesses. DEA pharmacologist Dr. Luli Akinfiresoye explained that botanical marijuana is not a standardized medicine. Potency varies widely, cannabinoid composition differs from product to product, contaminants remain inconsistent, and products sold under state marijuana programs are not manufactured through the FDA approval process required for approved prescription medications. She also acknowledged that state medical marijuana programs remain significant sources of diversion into recreational markets. Rather than supporting Schedule III placement, this testimony reinforced several of the principal reasons marijuana has historically remained in Schedule I. Throughout the hearings, government witnesses repeatedly acknowledged facts that are difficult to reconcile with Schedule III classification: - There is no FDA-approved botanical marijuana product being prescribed under modern pharmaceutical standards.
- There is no uniform dosage, formulation, or manufacturing process.
- Commercial marijuana products vary dramatically in potency and composition.
- State “medical marijuana” systems operate outside the traditional FDA drug approval framework.
- Diversion from state programs into illicit and recreational markets remains substantial.
Collectively, these admissions strengthened—not weakened—the evidence against rescheduling. A Fundamental Change in the Rules Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the hearings was the government’s attempt to justify rescheduling by abandoning the legal framework that had governed marijuana scheduling decisions for decades.
For years, the DEA applied a well-established five-part test for determining whether a substance possessed an “accepted medical use.” That framework required substantial scientific evidence demonstrating that a drug’s chemistry, safety, efficacy, and acceptance by qualified experts had been adequately established. Rather than demonstrating that marijuana satisfied this longstanding standard, HHS developed an entirely new two-factor approach that dramatically lowered the threshold for accepted medical use. This new interpretation effectively replaced decades of administrative precedent without congressional action and without formal rulemaking establishing why the prior legal framework should no longer apply. AALM believes this represents one of the most significant legal weaknesses in the government’s case. The issue before the court is not simply whether HHS preferred a different policy outcome. The issue is whether an executive agency may discard a longstanding legal standard in favor of a far less demanding one simply because the original standard could not be met. The hearing record provides little justification for that extraordinary change. Science Cannot Be Rewritten The hearings repeatedly demonstrated that today’s commercial marijuana products differ substantially from the marijuana evaluated in much of the earlier medical literature. Commercial products routinely contain THC concentrations many times greater than historical levels.
Manufacturing standards differ from state to state.
Quality control remains inconsistent. Products are marketed in forms—including candies, beverages, concentrates, and high-potency extracts—that bear little resemblance to traditional pharmaceutical products.
These realities only reinforce the conclusion that marijuana does not resemble any other Schedule III medication regulated under federal law. What Comes Next The evidentiary phase has ended. The Administrative Law Judge will now review the extensive record before issuing a recommended decision to the DEA Administrator. While only the Judge can determine the outcome, AALM believes the record overwhelmingly demonstrates that the Department of Justice failed to establish that marijuana satisfies the legal requirements for Schedule III. Indeed, one of the most striking features of these hearings was that some of the government’s own evidence supported maintaining marijuana’s current scheduling rather than changing it.
Administrative proceedings exist to ensure that agency action is grounded in evidence, law, and reasoned decision-making—not political pressure. AALM believes the record now before the Court provides every reason for the Administrative Law Judge to recommend that the proposed rule be rejected. The integrity of the Controlled Substances Act depends upon applying the law consistently, preserving scientific standards, and resisting efforts to rewrite established legal tests to reach a predetermined political result. For those reasons, AALM believes the only decision supported by the hearing record is a recommendation that the proposed rescheduling of marijuana be denied. | 
