Thin Legal Challenge from State AGs Could Still Complicate Federal Cannabis Rescheduling Effort

Three state attorneys general have filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s plan to reschedule cannabis, arguing that the Department of Justice lacks the authority to enact the reform. The legal action from the attorneys general of Indiana, Nebraska, and Louisiana was filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, according to a report from Marijuana Moment.

The lawsuit maintains that the attorneys general will “show that this agency action fails to comport with the requirements” of federal law, “was improperly promulgated and was otherwise procedurally improper,” “exceeds or is inconsistent with pertinent authority” and “ultimately, that this agency action is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.”

“Petitioners thus ask that this Court declare unlawful and vacate this final agency action,” the state attorneys general, who are all Republicans, wrote in their filing.

Lawsuit Bundled with Legal Action from Prohibitionist Group

On Wednesday, the court combined the lawsuit filed by the attorneys general with a separate legal action filed by Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), an influential cannabis prohibitionist group, and the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA). 

“We welcome these legal challenges brought by the attorneys general, who are taking bold action to stop this illegal order,” SAM CEO Kevin Sabet said in a press release. “Our coalition is growing as leaders around the country recognize that this unprecedented order will cause significant harm to public health and safety. We won’t rest until this dangerous action is reversed.”

SAM and NDASA claimed in their court complaint that they have been “aggrieved” by the federal cannabis reform.

Legal Experts Say Outcome of Lawsuit Unknown

Attorney Steven Schain, who serves as Of Counsel to Malkin Law, says that the attorneys general are leaning on a thin, policy‑driven challenge that offers little actual legal authority or precedent. Even so, the case sits in untested territory, which makes the outcome harder to predict than the weakness of the petition suggests. 

Schain adds that the administration relied on a rarely used section of the Controlled Substances Act that lets the Attorney General move quickly to satisfy international treaty obligations, and that novelty gives opponents an opening. In short, a policy‑based argument that wouldn’t normally carry much weight could still find traction simply because the court has no real precedent to guide it.

He also notes that the lawsuit’s venue is an indicator of how the court may approach the legal challenge. Because the plaintiff’s petition “was filed in an appellate court (which primarily focuses on law) and not a trial court (which focuses on developing a factual record to apply to existing law), the Court’s approach is critical.”

“For example,” Schain writes in a statement emailed to IgniteIt, “will the Court set aside the June 29, 2026, expedited administrative hearing and or shut down the DEA Medical Marijuana Dispensary Registration Portal before making a ruling?”

Attorney Paula Savchenko, the founder of multi-state licensing firm Cannacore Group and PS Law Group, says that from “a procedural standpoint, there are several key developments worth watching closely.”

“First will be any rulings on standing and jurisdiction, because courts may scrutinize whether the states can demonstrate a concrete injury sufficient to challenge the rescheduling action,” she says in a written interview. “Second, the court’s treatment of the administrative record will be critical, particularly how much deference it gives to scientific and medical findings from HHS and DEA. Third, any discussion by the court regarding the major questions doctrine or limits on agency discretion could have implications extending far beyond cannabis policy.”

Case Could Impact Policy Reform Efforts

Savchenko adds that although the strength of the arguments from the attorneys general, SAM, and NDASA remains to be seen, the outcome of the case could change the trajectory of marijuana policy reform efforts.

“If the plaintiffs were to succeed, it would certainly not end the push for federal cannabis reform, but it could significantly slow and complicate the pathway forward,” she writes. “Although unlikely, a successful challenge could create a pathway that requires major cannabis policy changes to come directly from Congress rather than through executive or administrative action. That would likely make future administrations more cautious when attempting broad scheduling changes under existing statutory authority.”