Industry Attorneys Weigh In as Federal Cannabis Rescheduling Heads to June 29 Hearing

The federal government’s cannabis rescheduling effort is now heading into its most public phase. The Justice Department has set a June 29 administrative hearing to examine whether the narrow Schedule III shift announced in April should be expanded to cover all cannabis. 

The hearing will bring together regulators, experts, and opponents for the first formal review of cannabis scheduling in decades. Attorneys following the process tell IgniteIt that the stakes are high, even if the outcome may already be taking shape behind the scenes.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s April order moved FDA‑approved cannabis products and state‑licensed medical cannabis into Schedule III. It also opened a federal registration pathway for medical operators and signaled that the government is prepared to revisit long‑standing assumptions about cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act. 

What remains unresolved is whether the federal government will extend that shift to all cannabis, including products sold in adult‑use markets. The June hearing is designed to answer that question.

Purpose of the Hearing

Los Angeles attorney Sahar Ayinehsazian says the hearing is meant to address the gap between the narrow, product‑specific rule and the broader question of cannabis as a substance. 

“What folks are hoping comes out of the June 29 hearing is a blanket substance-specific rescheduling to Schedule III,” she says. The current rule only covers FDA‑approved products and state‑licensed medical cannabis, leaving adult‑use cannabis untouched. 

“It is still a product that fits within a medicinal framework,” she says, which raises questions about how adult‑use markets would fit into any future federal structure.

Denver attorney Brian Vicente agrees that the hearing is fundamentally about whether all cannabis should move to Schedule III. He expects the proceedings to focus heavily on scientific evidence. 

“From a big picture perspective, that is what they will be diving into,” he says. “Is there medical efficacy to make the argument that all cannabis should be moved out of Schedule I?” 

Vicente believes the record already points toward a broader shift, citing decades of state medical programs and millions of patients. 

“The record at this point is clear,” he says.

Attorney Steven Schain, Of Counsel at Malkin Law, frames the purpose more broadly. He sees the hearing as a venue to consider not only rescheduling but also related reforms. 

“Ideally, the hearings will address down‑scheduling past Schedule III, expanding to encompass adult‑use cannabis, amending the Bank Secrecy Act to redefine money laundering and facilitate banking cannabis proceeds, and allowing interstate cannabis sales,” he says.

How Much the Hearing Will Matter

The attorneys diverge sharply on how much influence the hearing will actually have. Schain is the most skeptical. 

“Most deem the hearing as a pageant to ratify the findings and direction that the DEA and AG have already decided,” he says. 

In his view, the process is largely symbolic, designed to satisfy procedural requirements before agencies move ahead with changes they have already embraced.

Vicente sees more room for genuine evaluation but acknowledges that the government has already signaled its intent. He notes that the administrative law judge will issue a recommendation after the hearing, but the Department of Justice could go in a different direction if it chooses. 

“I think that would be extraordinary, but not impossible,” he says, adding that he believes the momentum is toward a broader rescheduling. “It appears to be headed toward a place where Schedule III would make more sense for cannabis.”

Ayinehsazian expects the scientific record to be scrutinized closely, especially given the decades of stigma surrounding cannabis. 

“I hope it gets its tires kicked in a factual way,” she says. 

She also emphasizes the importance of who is allowed to testify. 

“The folks that end up coming into that room are going to paint how the hearing goes and whether it is factual and truly non-biased,” says Ayinehsazian.

What Could Happen Next

All three attorneys agree on one point. Litigation is coming, no matter what the DEA decides. Vicente says prohibitionist groups are already preparing lawsuits. 

“They will try to find any legal angle,” he says. 

Schain notes that the current rescheduling order relies on a relatively untested provision of the Controlled Substances Act tied to international treaty obligations. 

“The AG Rule is vulnerable to challenge,” he says.

The potential industry impacts are wide-ranging. Ayinehsazian says states may eventually adjust their regulations to align with federal expectations, including the possibility of requiring medical operators to register with the DEA. Schain raises the prospect of interstate commerce and pharmacy‑based distribution, which could dramatically reshape the competitive landscape. Vicente focuses on the near‑term implications for adult‑use markets, which could see federal recognition for the first time if the rule expands.

A Turning Point for Federal Cannabis Policy

The June 29 hearing will not settle every question about federal cannabis policy, but it marks a decisive step in a process that has been stalled for decades. Whether the proceeding becomes a meaningful examination of the scientific record or a procedural formality, the outcome will shape the next phase of cannabis regulation in the United States. 

“You cannot separate cannabis from its reputational issues,” Ayinehsazian says, adding that the hearing will test whether federal policy can finally move beyond them. 

With litigation looming and major economic consequences at stake, the industry will be watching closely as the federal government takes its next steps toward a new regulatory era.