Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing on Hold: The GAO Report, the Reopening Fight and What Happens Next

By James Buddsey · Updated October 24, 2026

Update, October 24, 2026: DEA filed its reply on October 20 opposing new testimony and discovery, and on October 22 Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius denied the motion to reopen the hearing, noting the record already holds more than 2,500 pages of witness testimony. He did add the GAO report to the record and set briefs on it for October 29, with replies due November 5; the case stays on hold until that briefing closes, according to NORML. Our rescheduling explainer tracks each step.

As of October 16, 2026, the DEA hearing on moving all marijuana to Schedule III is on hold, and the next step is DEA’s written reply, due October 21, to opponents who want the hearing reopened for new testimony and document discovery over a federal watchdog report. Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius stayed the case on September 29, 2026, and on October 14 he ordered DEA to answer the reopening motion in a brief of no more than 10 pages, according to Marijuana Moment and the order posted on DocumentCloud. None of this changes the April 2026 order that already placed state-licensed medical marijuana in Schedule III.

For a case that looked close to the finish line in August, the last three weeks have been a detour. The hearing itself ended in July. Final briefs were in by August 17. The only step left was for the judge to write a recommended decision for the DEA Administrator. Then a report from the Government Accountability Office landed, and opponents of rescheduling used it to stop the clock. Here is what the report actually says, who is fighting over it, and what could happen after October 21.

Marijuana Rescheduling Timeline at a Glance

Sources: our rescheduling explainer, GAO, Marijuana Moment (Sept. 29), Marijuana Moment (Oct. 13). Status as of October 16, 2026.

What the GAO Report Found

The report is titled Drug Scheduling: While DEA Decisions Have Aligned with Recent HHS Recommendations, Both Need Comprehensive Policies (GAO-26-108623), published September 23, 2026. It is not a report about marijuana specifically. GAO looked at how DEA and the Department of Health and Human Services handled scheduling for every substance from 2020 through 2025.

The headline finding is actually reassuring for the system as it works today:

• DEA followed the science agency. DEA took scheduling actions on 208 substances in that period. It was required to consider HHS evaluations for 95 of them and did so every time. For the 84 substances with a published final rule as of December 31, 2025, DEA’s final decision matched HHS’s recommendation. The other 11 are still under extended temporary scheduling orders.
• The written rules are thin. GAO found that “DEA does not have policies that identify roles, responsibilities, and procedures related to scheduling.” FDA likewise lacks written policies on how its staff conduct the eight-factor evaluations and build scheduling recommendations, including how to decide whether a drug has a “potential for abuse.”
• An old agreement is out of date. The memorandum of understanding between FDA and the National Institute on Drug Abuse is more than 40 years old and “does not reflect the current entities involved or procedures.”
• Disagreements are rare. Officials told GAO that scientific differences between DEA and FDA are uncommon and are usually settled before the public comment stage.

GAO made three recommendations: DEA should write scheduling policies, FDA should write policies for its evaluations and define how it judges abuse potential, and FDA and NIH should update their agreement and review it regularly. According to GAO, the agencies concurred with all three.

Why Opponents Say the Report Matters

The motion to stay came from three hearing participants who oppose rescheduling: the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA), DUID Victim Voices and Kenneth Finn, M.D. Judge Julius agreed to pause the case on September 29, writing that “this matter is STAYED pending the Motion’s resolution,” as reported by Marijuana Moment.

Their argument is about process. In 2023, HHS recommended Schedule III using a two-part test rather than the five-factor test DEA had relied on in earlier marijuana denials. Opponents say the GAO findings show there was no written policy guiding that shift. On October 12 the same three parties asked for a “narrow reopening” so they could serve targeted document requests and seek testimony on five subjects, including who chose the July 2023 two-part test, why the 2023 HHS review did not address certain health effects, and what criteria FDA used for “potential for abuse,” according to Marijuana Moment. They say they are not asking for a new merits case.

Smart Approaches to Marijuana and the states of Idaho, Indiana and Nebraska filed a joint brief calling the GAO report “competent, relevant, and material evidence” and asking for supplemental briefing on whether HHS’s lack of written policies led to a departure from past practice.

DEA’s Position So Far

DEA, which asked the judge in its final brief to “expeditiously recommend” Schedule III, has taken a middle path. It told the tribunal it defers to the judge on whether the report goes into the record, but it opposes more briefing. DEA’s view is that the report identifies “gaps in the memorialization of rescheduling process, not any flaws in the rescheduling process itself,” and “does not present any new evidence salient to the issue before this Tribunal.” Marijuana Moment also notes that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded in 2024 that the older five-factor approach was “impermissibly narrow,” which cuts against the claim that the two-part test was an unexplained departure.

The October 21 filing is DEA’s chance to say whether it opposes reopening outright. As of October 16, 2026, that brief has not been filed, and the judge has not ruled on admitting the GAO report, on supplemental briefing or on the reopening motion.

Does This Push a Decision Into 2027?

Nobody can say yet, and anyone who gives you a firm date is guessing. What we can do is lay out the remaining steps under DEA’s hearing rules:

1. The judge rules on the pending motions after DEA’s October 21 reply and any responses. There is no published deadline for that ruling.
2. If he reopens the hearing, there would be a discovery and testimony phase of unknown length, and likely another round of briefs. If he denies reopening, the case could move straight back to the recommended decision, with or without the GAO report in the record.
3. The judge issues a recommended decision to the DEA Administrator.
4. Parties file exceptions within 20 days of being served with that report, under 21 CFR 1316.66.
5. The Administrator issues a final order, published in the Federal Register. The Administrator makes the final call and is not bound by the judge’s recommendation.
6. Court challenges to any final rule would follow, as they already have for the April order.

A denial of the reopening motion keeps a 2026 recommendation possible. A reopening, even a narrow one, makes a final rule before the end of the year much harder. Either way, the stay has already added weeks to a process that has been running since 2022.

What Has Not Changed

It is easy to read “rescheduling on hold” and assume everything froze. It did not. The stay applies only to the hearing on moving all marijuana to Schedule III. The separate April 2026 final order is still in place: FDA-approved marijuana products and marijuana held under a state medical marijuana license are in Schedule III, while adult-use and unlicensed marijuana remain in Schedule I. Our full explainer on why marijuana was Schedule I walks through how that split happened.

That April order faces its own legal fight. Challenges are pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, brought by state attorneys general, marijuana opponents and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical company. The court rejected requests from a drug testing industry group and a pharmaceutical company to block the order while the cases proceed, and the parties have proposed a joint briefing schedule, Marijuana Moment reports. A D.C. Circuit ruling could still change the medical piece, but nothing in the DEA hearing stay does.

What This Means for You

• Medical patients: Your state program works the same as it did before the stay. If you buy through a state-licensed medical program, that marijuana sits in Schedule III under the April order. Schedule III is still a controlled schedule, so the stay does not make cannabis legal to carry across state lines or onto federal property. If you are thinking about getting into a program, our medical marijuana card guide covers the steps.
• Adult-use consumers: Recreational marijuana is Schedule I under federal law as of October 16, 2026, exactly as it was before the GAO report. State law still governs what you can buy and carry; check your state’s rules, such as our Washington and Oregon guides.
• Cannabis businesses: Adult-use operators are still on the Schedule I side of the line. Federal tax code section 280E denies normal deductions to businesses trafficking in Schedule I and II substances, which is why the outcome of the broader hearing matters so much to that industry. Talk to a cannabis tax professional before changing how you file.
• Employees and job seekers: Drug testing rules, federal employment rules and federal firearms questions did not change because of the stay. Don’t assume a pending hearing gives you new protection.

For the bigger federal picture, including the hemp redefinition deadlines coming in November and December, see our federal cannabis laws hub, and follow new filings on our cannabis news page.

Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing FAQ

Status as of October 16, 2026. James Buddsey will update this story after DEA’s October 21 filing and any ruling from the judge. General information, not legal advice.