Article by: Tom Zuber and Radhi Shah

Federal cannabis policy is entering an exciting phase, but businesses should be cautious about assuming clarity where none yet exists. The proposed move of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act represents a meaningful policy shift, but it does not create a comprehensive federal cannabis framework. Instead, it introduces a new layer of regulatory complexity that will require careful navigation by both cannabis operators and pharmaceutical companies.

The rescheduling process itself is administrative, not legislative. While the Department of Health and Human Services has recommended Schedule III placement based on scientific and medical review, the Drug Enforcement Administration retains authority to finalize scheduling through rulemaking. Until that process is complete and withstands any procedural challenges, the legal effect of rescheduling remains provisional.

Even if finalized, Schedule III status should not be confused with federal legalization. Marijuana would remain a controlled substance subject to federal oversight, and many activities permitted under state cannabis laws would still lack a clear federal authorization. This disconnect between state legalization and federal control is not resolved by rescheduling alone.

One of the most significant unresolved issues is how federal agencies will treat existing state markets. State-licensed cultivation, manufacturing, and retail systems were designed without reference to federal controlled substance distribution requirements. Schedule III substances are typically handled through tightly regulated channels that emphasize registration, inventory controls, and standardized manufacturing practices. Whether and how state programs can coexist with those expectations remains an open question.

Another area of uncertainty involves enforcement posture. Federal agencies have historically exercised discretion when addressing state-compliant cannabis businesses. Rescheduling may shift enforcement priorities, but it does not eliminate statutory authority. Businesses should expect a period in which guidance develops unevenly and enforcement decisions vary by product type and conduct.

Litigation risk is also a factor. Any final scheduling rule will be subject to judicial review, and challenges could delay or narrow its practical impact. Companies making strategic decisions based on rescheduling should account for that possibility.

For industry participants, the most prudent approach is to treat rescheduling as a transitional event rather than a final destination. It signals increased federal engagement with cannabis, but it does not yet provide a unified compliance roadmap.