With the most consequential cannabis hearing in years now just days away, the Drug Enforcement Administration has locked in who gets to be in the room — and every last participant is on record opposing the move to loosen federal restrictions on marijuana.
On June 18 the DEA named seven "interested persons" who will take part in the June 29 administrative hearing on whether to reclassify cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. Not one of them supports rescheduling. The agency also named the judge who will run the proceedings and laid out a compressed schedule that wraps by mid-July. It is the clearest sign yet of how this fast-tracked process is taking shape — and why reform advocates are alarmed. We flagged the lopsided shape of this hearing when it first emerged; now the official roster confirms it.
Who made the list
The seven designated participants are all critics of rescheduling, several of whom are actively suing to block it:
- National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA), a trade group for the drug-testing industry.
- Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, a state law-enforcement agency.
- Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), the country's best-known anti-legalization organization.
- The states of Nebraska, Idaho, Indiana and Louisiana, grouped together as a single party.
- DUID Victim Voices, an advocacy group focused on drugged driving.
- Kenneth Finn, M.D., a Colorado pain physician.
- Phillip A. Drum, Pharm.D., a pharmacist.
Several of these parties — including Finn, NDASA, SAM, and the states of Nebraska and Indiana — have already gone to court trying to undo the administration's move to reschedule medical cannabis.
Who didn't make the list
The glaring absence is anyone speaking for reform. The American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp (ATACH), which had assembled a legal team and formally asked to take part, was shut out entirely. ATACH President Michael Bronstein said the group was 'deeply disappointed that not a single supporter of cannabis rescheduling was selected,' calling the lineup a roster of prohibitionist voices with little experience in the medical use of cannabis. ATACH says it will keep pushing through the Coalition for Cannabis Scheduling Reform.
It is a sharp break from the last attempt at this hearing. Under the Biden administration, the DEA had named 25 participants, including pro-rescheduling parties, before the process stalled on appeal. The Trump DEA, working from the same legal definition of an 'interested person,' selected zero.
The judge and the schedule
Presiding over the hearing is Derek C. Julius, the DEA's chief administrative law judge, who previously served as the agency's foreign section chief in the Office of Chief Counsel. In a June 18 preliminary order, Julius set a tight timeline: the hearing begins June 29 and must conclude no later than July 15.
The format is rigid. Each party gets 15 minutes for an opening statement and may call up to two witnesses (two hours each) or one witness for up to four hours. Parties can cross-examine the government's witnesses for up to an hour, but cannot cross-examine one another. Prehearing statements naming witnesses were due June 24.
What is actually on the table
It is easy to misread this hearing as the whole ballgame. It is not. Back on April 22, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche ordered state-licensed medical cannabis and FDA-approved cannabis products moved immediately to Schedule III — a shift that has already prompted federal on-site inspections of medical operators. That piece is done. Julius made clear his hearing will not revisit it: 'no evidence or testimony will be received on that matter,' he wrote. The narrow question now is whether the rest of marijuana — everything outside that medical carve-out — should also move from Schedule I to Schedule III.
The judge also confirmed something that cuts against the one-sided roster: the government itself is the 'proponent' of the rule and carries the burden of proof. In other words, the DEA has to make the affirmative case for rescheduling, even though the only outside voices in the room oppose it. The agency could still call a pro-rescheduling expert as one of its own witnesses.
Why a one-sided hearing matters
A hearing where only opponents participate sounds like a death sentence for reform, but the dynamics are more complicated. Because the government bears the burden and is defending the rule, an opposition-only record could actually leave the eventual decision vulnerable. If regulators approve Schedule III anyway, critics will struggle to claim the process was rigged in cannabis's favor. And if a court later reviews the decision, a thin or one-sided administrative record can cut both ways. Industry observers have warned that excluding the supporters who dominated public comment could expose any final rule to challenge for failing to weigh the question fairly.
What it means for New York
For New York operators and shoppers, the immediate effects are limited but the stakes are enormous. Rescheduling to Schedule III would end the punishing 280E tax burden for plant-touching businesses and ease research restrictions — a financial shift that has already helped push companies like Trulieve onto the NYSE. The medical reclassification is already in effect; this hearing decides whether the rest of the market follows. New York's adult-use program keeps growing regardless, and you can still compare licensed dispensaries and today's deals on High Today while the federal picture sorts itself out.
The bottom line
The June 29 hearing now has a roster, a judge, and a deadline — and a conspicuous absence of any voice for reform. Whether that one-sidedness helps or haunts the final decision will play out over the next few weeks, and we will be tracking it. Original reporting based on publicly reported developments; each claim links to its source. For adults 21+. Not legal or medical advice.