The Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) administrative hearing on cannabis rescheduling saw both sides make their closing arguments on Wednesday, July 15, bringing the 17-day proceedings to a broadly positive close.
Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Derek Julius is yet to make his recommendation, and a consolidated legal challenge to the existing rescheduling order is already underway, the record now before the judge appears to favour a move to Schedule III.
The hearing may be over, but much of the battle to liberalise cannabis regulation in the US is still to be fought.
Catch up on everything that’s happened so far…
The final day
The states of Nebraska, Idaho and Indiana, the last of the seven designated participants, presented their case on 14 July, calling Dr Deepak Cyril D’Souza, founding director of the Yale Centre for the Science of Cannabis and Cannabinoids, and Humboldt County, California Sheriff William Honsal.
D’Souza testified about cannabis’s links to mental illness, including schizophrenia. As with several other opposition witnesses, however, his testimony did not directly engage with the question central to the hearing: whether cannabis has currently accepted medical use under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
Honsal had been called as a law-enforcement witness by the anti-rescheduling states to argue against rescheduling.
However, under cross-examination by Justice Department attorneys Honsal told the tribunal that legal, regulated cannabis is a positive for law enforcement, and that most of the California cannabis diverted to other states originates from unlicensed, unregulated sources, according to attorneys from Vicente LLP.
That put him in direct contradiction with his own pre-hearing statement, filed on the states’ behalf, which attributed an expansion of the illicit market directly to changes in cannabis laws, and referenced organised criminal groups from the US and overseas purchasing Californian property to mass-produce cannabis for interstate distribution.
As made clear in coverage in MEDCAN24, it was consistent, however, with most of his previous public statements on cannabis. Ross Gordon, policy director at the Origins Council, an advocacy group representing small cultivators in northern California’s Emerald Triangle, told MEDCAN24 that Honsal had for years ‘consistently made the point that legalisation of cannabis in California and in Humboldt County has reduced the size and scale of the illicit market, and also criminal activity associated with the illicit market.’
In October 2019, Honsal told the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors that illegal cannabis farms in the county were declining. “That is what we call a win,” he said.
His messaging shifted after he became president of the Northern California Coalition to Safeguard Communities, a multi-county nonprofit that receives all of its funding from the Howard G. Buffett Foundation. The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office accepted a $334,615 grant from the coalition in 2024, funding three staff positions, training and equipment.
What comes next?
Julius issued a post-hearing order on July 16, setting August 17 as the deadline for designated parties to file optional post-hearing briefs. Submissions are voluntary, may be up to 50 pages and can include closing arguments as well as arguments on any other issue noted during the proceedings.
The same deadline applies to proposed corrections to the official hearing transcripts. Julius will review submissions and adopt a final corrections list, after which a fully corrected transcript will be published publicly on the DEA’s website.
The hearing was not livestreamed and access was limited to approximately 25 seats, making this the first time a full record of proceedings will be in the public domain.
Julius gave no indication at the close of the hearing of when he would issue his recommended decision. DEA Administrator Terry Cole, who will make the agency’s final determination, faces no statutory deadline to act on whatever Julius produces. Under the regulations, parties will have 20 days after receiving Julius’s report to file exceptions before the full record transfers to Cole.
Nine anti-rescheduling parties are already challenging the April 2026 order, which immediately rescheduled state-licensed medical cannabis to Schedule III, in the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
Whatever Julius recommends and Cole ultimately decides, that court is where the most durable opposition arguments will be tested.
The Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) administrative hearing on cannabis rescheduling saw both sides make their closing arguments on Wednesday, July 15, bringing the 17-day proceedings to a broadly positive close.
Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Derek Julius is yet to make his recommendation, and a consolidated legal challenge to the existing rescheduling order is already underway, the record now before the judge appears to favour a move to Schedule III.
The hearing may be over, but much of the battle to liberalise cannabis regulation in the US is still to be fought.
Catch up on everything that’s happened so far…
The final day
The states of Nebraska, Idaho and Indiana, the last of the seven designated participants, presented their case on 14 July, calling Dr Deepak Cyril D’Souza, founding director of the Yale Centre for the Science of Cannabis and Cannabinoids, and Humboldt County, California Sheriff William Honsal.
D’Souza testified about cannabis’s links to mental illness, including schizophrenia. As with several other opposition witnesses, however, his testimony did not directly engage with the question central to the hearing: whether cannabis has currently accepted medical use under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
Honsal had been called as a law-enforcement witness by the anti-rescheduling states to argue against rescheduling.
However, under cross-examination by Justice Department attorneys Honsal told the tribunal that legal, regulated cannabis is a positive for law enforcement, and that most of the California cannabis diverted to other states originates from unlicensed, unregulated sources, according to attorneys from Vicente LLP.
That put him in direct contradiction with his own pre-hearing statement, filed on the states’ behalf, which attributed an expansion of the illicit market directly to changes in cannabis laws, and referenced organised criminal groups from the US and overseas purchasing Californian property to mass-produce cannabis for interstate distribution.
As made clear in coverage in MEDCAN24, it was consistent, however, with most of his previous public statements on cannabis. Ross Gordon, policy director at the Origins Council, an advocacy group representing small cultivators in northern California’s Emerald Triangle, told MEDCAN24 that Honsal had for years ‘consistently made the point that legalisation of cannabis in California and in Humboldt County has reduced the size and scale of the illicit market, and also criminal activity associated with the illicit market.’
In October 2019, Honsal told the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors that illegal cannabis farms in the county were declining. “That is what we call a win,” he said.
His messaging shifted after he became president of the Northern California Coalition to Safeguard Communities, a multi-county nonprofit that receives all of its funding from the Howard G. Buffett Foundation. The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office accepted a $334,615 grant from the coalition in 2024, funding three staff positions, training and equipment.
What comes next?
Julius issued a post-hearing order on July 16, setting August 17 as the deadline for designated parties to file optional post-hearing briefs. Submissions are voluntary, may be up to 50 pages and can include closing arguments as well as arguments on any other issue noted during the proceedings.
The same deadline applies to proposed corrections to the official hearing transcripts. Julius will review submissions and adopt a final corrections list, after which a fully corrected transcript will be published publicly on the DEA’s website.
The hearing was not livestreamed and access was limited to approximately 25 seats, making this the first time a full record of proceedings will be in the public domain.
Julius gave no indication at the close of the hearing of when he would issue his recommended decision. DEA Administrator Terry Cole, who will make the agency’s final determination, faces no statutory deadline to act on whatever Julius produces. Under the regulations, parties will have 20 days after receiving Julius’s report to file exceptions before the full record transfers to Cole.
Nine anti-rescheduling parties are already challenging the April 2026 order, which immediately rescheduled state-licensed medical cannabis to Schedule III, in the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
Whatever Julius recommends and Cole ultimately decides, that court is where the most durable opposition arguments will be tested.
Cannabis Law Resources in Poland
Explore essential legal pages about cannabis cultivation, sales, and medical product regulations in Poland. These resources will guide you through permissions, certifications, and compliance requirements.
-
Polish News Registration and Interests of Cannabis Businesses
-
Permissions for Cannabis Sales in Poland
-
Authorization for Importing or Manufacturing Medical Products
-
Permission for Manufacturing or Importing Medical Products
-
Certificate of Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)
-
Registration of Medical Products in Poland