Chambers and Partners evaluates law firms and attorneys based on extensive independent research and client feedback, considering factors such as:

• Technical legal ability
• Professional conduct
• Client service
• Commercial awareness
• Diligence
• Commitment

View the Harris Sliwoski ranking HERE.

View Vince Sliwoski’s ranking HERE.

View Christian Sederberg’s ranking HERE.

Denver-based attorney Christian Sederberg received Chambers’ highest individual cannabis law ranking, Band 1. Christian is widely recognized as one of the pioneers of the regulated cannabis industry and has spent more than 15 years helping businesses, investors, and entrepreneurs navigate the rapidly evolving cannabis marketplace. He regularly advises clients on licensing, regulatory compliance, corporate transactions, and strategic growth initiatives across the cannabis sector.

Portland-based Vince Sliwoski was again recognized for his work in Cannabis Law, earning a Band 3 ranking. Vince is widely regarded as one of the country’s leading cannabis business attorneys and has also spent 15 years helping cannabis businesses navigate complex regulatory and business challenges. taught one of the nation’s first law school courses dedicated to cannabis law and policy, and runs the award-winning Canna Law Blog.

For more information about Harris Sliwoski’s Cannabis Law practice, please click HERE. To stay informed on cannabis industry legislation, regulation, and compliance, subscribe to our Canna Law Blog.

The post Harris Sliwoski Earns Chambers USA Cannabis Law Recognition for 2026 appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

It’s common for state cannabis programs to evolve through annual legislation and rulemaking. The changes are often dramatic in the handful of years following program launch. Here, the package was described as “maintenance” by State Rep. Jessican Hanson, but we view it as very impactful. Minnesota’s new cannabis legislation concerns access, licensing, distribution, and product standards in ways that should matter to both hemp and cannabis operators.

If you’d like to review the new legislation, you can find the Omnibus Cannabis Bill here. Note: it’s a lot of reading! New text is underlined, and you’ll find removed sections of existing laws shown  in strike-through.

If you’d rather skip that painful reading, here is a high-level summary, broken into bullet points where possible for readability:

Unified supply chain

The new law eliminates the requirement to maintain separate medical and adult-use supply chains for licensees in CTS. Businesses with a medical endorsement may now operate under a single cultivation, manufacturing, and inventory system, including unified tracking within Metrc. This change is intended to reduce operational inefficiencies while preserving patient access.

Every state that has rolled out an adult-use program following a medical marijuana program has merged supply chains to some extent. Here, Minnesota follows suit.

Medical market safeguards

These safeguards tie into the program “merger” to some extent. To ensure continuity of care, the law imposes new obligations on medical-endorsed businesses. These include:

• Employment of a licensed pharmacist or medical cannabis consultant
• Priority service measures for patients (e.g., dedicated lines, curbside pickup, advance ordering)
• Mandatory stocking of products identified as high medical need
• A 24-hour fulfillment expectation for patient requests across the market

Note: certain medical products are exempt from adult-use potency limits, and hemp-derived cannabinoids are permitted in medical formulations.

New macrobusiness license (Effective Jan. 1, 2027)

The existing medical cannabis combination business license will sunset. In its place, the legislation rolls out a “macrobusiness” license, featuring:

• Up to 38,000 square feet of indoor canopy (reduced dramatically, from 90,000)
• Up to eight retail locations, with location requirements tied to high-need areas
• A statewide cap of eight licenses until January 1, 2030

Existing medical licensees must convert to microbusiness licensure by January 1, 2027. Incremental canopy increases are available over time for compliant operators. The law also introduces a petition process for smaller businesses seeking to move into higher license tiers.

Incentives for licensees with medical endorsements

Operators with medical cannabis endorsements receive meaningful benefits:

• Expanded cultivation limits for micro, mezzo, and cultivation licensees
• Additional retail locations in designated high-need areas
• Authority to deliver directly to patients and caregivers
• Expanded transport rights for certain license types

In exchange, a portion of increased production must be supplied to other medical-endorsed businesses.

Hemp industry transition

In advance of the federal re-definition of “hemp” effective November 12, 2026, the law allows dual licensure for hemp and cannabis businesses, enabling hemp operators to transition into the regulated cannabis market. It also authorizes new “ratio hemp-infused cannabis products” within defined cannabinoid limits, as follows:

• containing no more than 100 milligrams of certain cannabinoids (CBD, CBG, CBN, or CBC) per serving.
• containing a maximum of 10 milligrams of THC per serving.
• containing 200 milligrams of THC per package for edibles (or two servings per container for beverages).

Reporting and oversight changes

The Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) will transition to a streamlined, bifurcated reporting structure consisting of an annual market analysis, and a consolidated legislative report due annually, by January 15.

The revised framework attempts to prioritize public health, safety, and market data, while reducing prior reporting burdens.

Additional regulatory updates

Again, the law is expansive and contains myriad changes. Here are some of additional highlights on our review:

• Local governments must adopt reasonable cannabis regulations (which is great!) and apply population-based licensing thresholds using upward rounding.
• OCM gains expanded authority to deny or revoke licenses and enforce compliance.
• Preliminary license approvals now include mandatory extension rights.
• Social equity applicants may hold up to four licenses with capped ownership stakes.
• Compliant cannabis and hemp activities are expressly protected under state law.

Timeline and next steps

Most provisions of the new law take effect soon—on August 1, 2026. The macrobusiness framework becomes effective January 1, 2027, as noted above.

All Minnesota cannabis businesses—particularly those with or considering medical endorsements—should evaluate operational, licensing, and compliance impacts now. Hemp operators face a more immediate decision window given the November 2026 federal deadline, as we’ve repeatedly explained in our hemp-related blog posts.

Contact us if you have any questions on what these changes mean for your Minnesota cannabis business!

The post Minnesota’s New Cannabis and Hemp Laws appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

Similar to SAM’s petition, the States’ petition alleges that the AG: (1) failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act; (2) exceeded or acted inconsistently with authority under the CSA and the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs; and (3) acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and in abuse of discretion. Prior to consolidation, SAM had been ordered to submit procedural motions, which would include a potential motion to stay the rescheduling order, by June 4, 2026. No such deadline was set in the States’ case, but it is expected that the court will coordinate those deadlines going forward.

What is Standing?

In law, “standing” is the legal capacity of a party to bring a lawsuit or participate in a case. To have standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate a direct, tangible stake in the outcome and show that they have suffered, or will suffer, a specific, concrete injury due to the action being challenged. The doctrine of standing ensures that someone cannot challenge a law simply because they don’t like it, or the policy behind it. The law has to affect them.

This doctrine was recently in the news again in federal cannabis litigation, when another lawsuit brought by SAM was dismissed for lack of standing. In SAM v. Kennedy, SAM had sought to block a new Trump administration initiative to cover up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products each year for eligible Medicare patients. That program is still on track.

Why SAM and NDASA Likely Cannot Survive Standing

As the SAM v. Kennedy litigation made clear, standing is a threshold that is difficult to establish. On May 22, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that SAM and its co-plaintiffs lacked standing in that case. The same analysis would almost certainly apply to SAM’s Schedule III petition.

An association can establish “associational standing” when: “(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.”

To establish “organizational standing,” plaintiffs must “plausibly allege they suffered an ‘actual or threatened injury in fact’ to their own interests that is ‘fairly traceable to the alleged illegal action and likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision.’“

Under either theory, SAM and NDASA must show “an injury that is actual, imminent, or certainly impending” — a showing they could not make in SAM v. Kennedy and are unlikely to make in the Schedule III litigation.

Why the States May be Different

The addition of Nebraska, Indiana, and Louisiana opens new avenues for standing that SAM alone could not access or satisfy.

Particularized Injury

To establish particularized injury standing, a state must demonstrate an injury that is: (1) concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (2) fairly traceable to the challenged action; and (3) redressable by a favorable ruling. This form of standing will likely be the most difficult avenue for the State Petitioners to pursue. Louisiana has an established medical marijuana program, meaning the AG’s final rule — which benefits state-licensed programs — cuts against rather than in favor of Louisiana’s claimed injury. Nebraska is in the process of rolling out its own medical marijuana program (maybe), placing it in a similar position, especially since voters overwhelmingly approved a medical marijuana measure in 2024.

Indiana presents a different theory: as a state with no medical marijuana program and strict prohibition laws, it could argue that rescheduling state-licensed medical marijuana at the federal level would foreseeably increase the flow of marijuana across its borders, causing a concrete harm to the state. However, demonstrating that this injury is imminent and fairly traceable to the rescheduling rule specifically — rather than to the pre-existing legal markets in surrounding states — will be a challenging causal link to establish.

Parens Patriae

A state may also establish standing as a quasi-sovereign representative of its population. “A quasi-sovereign interest must be sufficiently concrete to create an actual controversy between the State and the defendant.”

Courts have long recognized that states may represent their residents in suits involving threats to public health, holding that “if health and comfort of the inhabitants of a State are threatened, the State is the proper party to represent and defend them.” To withstand such an action, however, the state must have “a quasi-sovereign interest in the health and well-being — both physical and economic — of its residents in general,” and must “allege injury to a sufficiently substantial segment of its population.” A key factor is whether “the State, if it could, would likely attempt to address [the issue at hand] through sovereign lawmaking powers.” Further, many cases have required that at least one of the state’s citizens satisfy Article III standing.

Of the three states, Indiana presents the strongest case for parens patriae standing. Because Indiana has no medical marijuana program and has consistently chosen prohibition, it can credibly argue that its sovereign policy judgment — that marijuana is harmful to its citizens — is being undermined by a federal rule that effectively legitimizes state-licensed marijuana and foreseeably increases its availability.

Louisiana and Nebraska, by contrast, face a fundamental tension: both states, through their legislatures or their voters, have already determined that medical marijuana is in the best interest of their citizens’ health and well-being. It is difficult to simultaneously hold that position and argue that the AG’s rule — which benefits those same state-licensed programs — threatens the health and well-being of their populations.

It bears noting that most parens patriae cases do not arise from challenges to federal agency action, which could complicate this theory. The conservative wing of the Supreme Court believes that there is “significant doubt on a State’s standing to asset a quasi-sovereign interest – as opposed to direct injury – against the Federal Government.” When such a state-federal conflict exists, it is the United States, and not the State, which represents the citizens.

Statutory Standing

Finally, a state may derive standing from a procedural right granted by Congress. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court recognized that states are not ordinary litigants and are entitled to “special solicitude” in standing analysis when asserting a quasi-sovereign interest tied to a congressional grant of procedural rights.

While the CSA and APA provide states with specific authorities and obligations, they are not as express as those provided to states under EPA laws.

The Merits, if Standing is Established

Standing is likely dispositive in this litigation. If any petitioner clears that hurdle, the rescheduling rule was poorly conceived, and faces serious legal problems on the merits.

As we have written previously (here, here, here and here), the AG did not simply reschedule a substance as permitted under 21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(1). The rule effectively rescheduled state-legal programs. Moreover, the FDA is the agency responsible for medical determinations and played no meaningful role in the rulemaking process (outside of providing medical and scientific determinations for the other rescheduling action). A court reaching the merits will likely have strong grounds to find that the final rule exceeded AG and DEA authority.

Conclusion

If this case moves forward, the cannabis industry must begin thinking seriously about alternative strategies for advancing sensible cannabis policy. In the coming weeks and months, I will be outlining one such approach: Project Four 2029. Stay tuned.

The post Standing Is Everything: Three States Join the Medical Marijuana Rescheduling Fight appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

Jason’s panel is at 12:00pm EST on Monday, June 1. The title is “Moving Cannabis Across Borders: What It Takes.”

Jason’s work focuses heavily on international cannabis law, regulatory compliance, and cross-border business strategy. As global cannabis markets continue to evolve, operators increasingly face complex legal and commercial questions that reach beyond any single jurisdiction. These conversations have become especially important as businesses evaluate international expansion, regulatory changes, and emerging market opportunities.

GrowUp brings together stakeholders from across the cannabis ecosystem, making it an ideal setting for meaningful discussions about where the industry is headed and the practical challenges businesses face along the way.

If you’ll be attending CannaVision in Toronto, connect with Jason and say hello.

Learn more about the conference and session details here: Grow Up Conference.

The post Jason Adelstone to Speak at Global Cannabis Executive Summit in Toronto, June 1 appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

To the good, sales are ticking up each month. In April, the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) tracker showed $15M in collected revenue from adult-use sales, and $10M in collected revenue from medical sales. This steady improvement, along with Minnesota’s robust population, regulatory philosophy, and the income tax relief that may come with federal rescheduling, make it an interesting time for a cannabis licensing play in the North Star state.

This blog post gives high-level information on acquiring a Minnesota cannabis license, in FAQ format. By way of background, I am a native Minnesotan and locally licensed business lawyer who has followed this program since inception, and supported the cannabis industry since 2011.

What is the first step to getting a Minnesota cannabis license?

The first step is to determine which license type you are after. Only certain license types are open for application with OCM. These include:

• Cannabis Retailer
• Cannabis Wholesaler
• Cannabis Event Organizer
• Cannabis Testing Facility
• Lower-Potency Hemp Edible Manufacturer

Other license types are not available for application with OCM (the lottery closed last summer), but may still be sourced on the secondary market. These license types include:

• Cannabis Microbusiness
• Cannabis Mezzobusiness
• Cannabis Cultivator
• Cannabis Manufacturer
• Cannabis Transporter
• Cannabis Delivery Service
• Lower-Potency Hemp Edible Retailer
• Lower-Potency Hemp Edible Wholesaler
• Medical Cannabis Combination Business

What is the license acquisition process?

For license types on offer with OCM, you need to create an Accela account. Beyond that, the OCM User Guide contains a wealth of information on the license application process—too much to summarize here..

For license types on offer in the secondary market, see Buying and Selling Minnesota Cannabis Licenses. I published that piece back in November, but the information is still good.

What documents are required?

Applicants need to provide ownership and control disclosures, a preliminary business plan, a preliminary operations plan, a security plan, and other supporting materials tied to the specific license type. OCM also requires company capitalization information, and labor peace agreements are required for many license types.

Who can apply for a cannabis license in Minnesota?

MN Statute 342.16 contains a full list of “ownership disqualification and requirements.” Generally speaking, applicants must be at least 21 years of age, and there is no residency requirement. If the applicant or license holder is a business entity, though, that entity must be formed or organized in Minnesota.

What happens after I submit the application?

OCM reviews your application for basic eligibility and completeness, and qualified applicants move forward in the process. Background checks are required for every qualified applicant and true party of interest (as per MN Statutes 342.185).

Do I need a location before applying?

No. None of the lottery applicants we worked with had a location to start, in fact. However, you will eventually need to secure a compliant location and obtain local zoning approval.

What role does local government play?

Local approval is a major part of the process, “serving as a near-final approval check on cannabis businesses nearing the awarding of a state license…”, to quote OCM. In short, local governments must certify zoning compliance for a business to receive a state license, and, if applicable, retail registration is needed in some cases.

How long does the process take?

It depends. Per statue, OCM has 90 days to issue a license or a denial from the point when an applicant completes a site registration, uploads final application documents, and requests a zoning compliance certification. In our experience, local zoning step is often the hardest step, and OCM encourages applicants not to complete site registration until that hurdle is cleared.

What is the most common reason applicants struggle?

Finding a location and clearing local zoning is probably the biggest challenge we see. On the social equity side, we’ve also seen several applicants falter when it comes time to gather financial support. Those licenses are turning out to be far less lucrative than many initially expected.

Final thoughts on Minnesota cannabis licensing

Acquiring a Minnesota cannabis license is within reach for motivated parties who can follow basic protocols, marshal resources, and roll with the ongoing changes—many of which are designed to bolster the program. This market is beginning to mature and still holds significant promise. Call us if you are sizing up an opportunity.

The post How to Acquire a Minnesota Cannabis License appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

Is OLCC issuing new marijuana licenses?

Yes, but on a “one in and one out” protocol. The only way to acquire a cannabis license in Oregon (aside from a laboratory license) is to find a willing seller, and enter into a coordinated transaction with that seller and OLCC. This protocol has followed Oregon’s robust secondary market for “naked license” transfers since January 1, 2022, when the OLCC stopped taking new license applications due to a saturated market and administrative backlog.

What types of cannabis licenses are available?

OLCC issues five main marijuana business licenses: producer, processor, wholesaler, retailer and laboratory. Producer licenses are offered at various canopy sizes, both indoor and outdoor—and a buyer is allowed to scale up or down. In other words, a micro-tier producer can agree to “sell” its license to an incoming licensee at a Tier I or II designation.

For the sake of completion, there is also a research certificate. Those are available from OLCC directly, and not subject to the “one in one out” policy–just like with the laboratory licenses.

How do I find a license?

You need to find a seller. Sometimes that happens through word of mouth and networking; other times, people source these deals through brokers. We recommend CannXperts as the gold standard there. We also recommend, very strongly, to never sign any type of “license sale” agreement offered by a broker. It’s a sad fact of life in my office that we deal with messed up broker situations on a weekly basis.

What do licenses cost?

Prices have fluctuated over the years. Today, we are seeing producer licenses trade hands in the $90K – $120K range. Processor licenses are selling for $25K – $30K. Wholesalers are going for that or less. And retail licenses are generally priced in accordance with a store’s performance. A store humming along at $1.5M in annual sales, for example, will sell for much more than a store doing $500K.

What does a license purchase agreement look like?

Most of them take the form of an asset purchase agreement, and may include additional assets (e.g. equipment, inventory), in addition to the license transferred. Less frequently— but especially for larger deals—we’ve structured these as stock sales. There’s typically an escrow component, as well, with an escrow agreement.

Prior to all of this, there is often a (non-binding) LOI, and sometimes even a non-disclosure agreement. It’s critical to have attorney eyes on anything you hope to sign; or better yet, have an attorney do the drafting so you don’t waste time and money fighting terrible forms.

Can my license issue in a new location?

Yes. Many of these deals have a change-in-location component, as well as a change-in-ownership. Either way, OLCC requires a land use compatibility statement (LUCS) for the incoming licensee, and will also require a notarized proof of landlord consent in the context of producer and processor licenses. The outgoing and incoming licensees will also need to pass an inspection by an OLCC inspector, at each relevant location.

What should I do first?

Once you find a willing seller, it’s time to do some basic diligence. This can occur prior to signing a purchase agreement, or in a defined, post-signing window. Some diligence will be basic, like whether a seller is a business in good standing with the Oregon Secretary of State (some aren’t), and whether the person representing the seller does, in fact, have authority to sell (some don’t). Other diligence will be specific to the license type: for example, in the case of retail, the seller will need to acquire a Certificate of Tax Compliance from the Oregon Department of Revenue.

How do I apply? And what documents are required?

You apply through OLCC’s CAMP online portal. If you’d like a preview of what is required, the forms are here. Certain owners will need to submit to a background check, which includes fingerprints and such.

After creating a CAMP account and uploading your application documents, you pay the applicable fees, and respond to any follow-up requests from the Commission. Those will typically come after your file is assigned to an investigator, which is happening within a week of completed applications at this point.

Anyone working on site, including owners, will also need to acquire a marijuana worker permit.

How much does it cost?

Costs vary by license type and, in the case of producer licenses, by canopy size. There is also a $250 application fee across all license types. Beyond that, OLCC publishes a comprehensive list of fees on its site—just click the “Fees” link under the “Other Forms and Resources” header. Finally, be aware that certain jurisdictions, like the City of Portland, have their own licensing requirements and annual fee schedules. Those requirements are mostly ill-conceived and redundant, but you have to comply regardless.

How long does it take?

Timing depends on the license type, the completeness of your application, and availability of inspectors in the relevant region. We’ve seen organized transactions sale through in two or three month timeframe. It’s also worth noting that all applicants must complete the application process within 60 calendar days of investigator assignment. Otherwise, OLCC will inactivate the application, which can cause real issues in respect of purchase agreements.

What mistakes should I avoid?

I covered the broker thing already. Another problem we see frequently is outgoing licensees handing over the keys prior to approval, sometimes under the purview of a services agreement, at which point financial considerations may become muddled, and compliance issues often accrue. Another problem relates to landlord negotiations and assuming a lease will be assignable when it isn’t. But, the biggest problem of all is just handing money over without protections, for any number of reasons. Unfortunately, it happens a lot.

Bottom line

The secondary market for Oregon cannabis license transfers is robust. From this lawyer’s perspective, the process is straightforward with no need for undue complexity. OLCC is easy to work with nowadays, and these deals have straightforward protocols from start to finish.

That said, there are also numerous pitfalls, and no shortage of unscrupulous characters. It’s best to work with someone who does this every day, to make sure you get in (or out) with minimal friction, and the best possible protection. Call us if you are sizing up a deal.

The post How to Acquire an Oregon Cannabis License appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

The DOJ order shifts state-legal medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III and establishes an optional DEA registration framework through which state-licensed operators may seek to participate. The confusion, on whether registration is mandatory, stems from confusion over two federal provisions: (1) 21 USC 811(d)(1)— a provision that suddenly everyone claims to understand, but few actually do; and (2) 26 USC 280E.

Q: Why does 21 USC 811(d)(1) matter now?

It largely didn’t for industry, until now. The industry spent years chasing legislative solutions, whether full legalization, SAFE Banking, or uplisting. This provision sat ignored, despite a handful of us arguing its importance. Legal and policy wonks like me were talking about 811(d)(1) to any operators and industry associations who would listen. All of them brushed us aside. Ironically, many operators who ignored us then are unlikely to obtain the maximum benefits from it now.

21 USC 811(d)(1) allows the Attorney General to “issue an order controlling such drug” if doing so is required by U.S. obligations under the Single Convention. There is an important distinction between that language and what actually occurred: that is, DEA didn’t reschedule a “drug”; instead, it rescheduled a program. Further, under U.S. law, what constitutes a “drug” is a determination to be made by FDA under the Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act. These are likely two of the main arguments Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) will make in its forthcoming litigation.

Q: Does 280E apply to state licensed medical operators who don’t register with DEA?

No, it does not. Tax code 280E prohibits deduction and credits for any trade or business trafficking in Schedule I or II substances. The order includes the following: “as a consequence of this rule, state licensees will no longer be subject to the deduction disallowance imposed by Section 280E.” Further, “[t]he final rule places in schedule III . . . marijuana subject to a state medical marijuana license.”

IRC 280E says nothing about DEA registration. The only qualification for schedule III placement, is that marijuana is subject to a state medical marijuana reprogram. Therefore, whether a state license operators is DEA registered is not a factor in whether it is operating with a schedule III substance. Only its state legality and license matters. For more information on the tax implications of this final rule, please read Vince Sliwoski’s blog post last week.

Q: What is the likelihood of opponents’ litigation prevailing?

This question should be the first one operators ask , but surprisingly, it rarely is. If SAM, or anyone else challenging this rescheduling order prevails, all of this will be for naught. As noted above, there are substantial legal questions as to whether DEA exceeded its authority in issuing this order. I believe there is greater than a 50% chance that this order is stayed and ultimately overturned. It is not 100% certain, however, which is why I recently published a blog post calling DEA registration a “Calculated Risk.” If you already have a medical license and all that is required is $10,000–$15,000 to hire an attorney and apply for registration, you have much better odds than playing Powerball or going to Vegas.

Q: Do international treaty obligations apply to state-licensed operators?

This depends on who you ask. The U.S. has maintained for years that international drug treaty obligations do not apply to state-licensed programs. That position, vocalized by Patt Prugh at the 2024 CND (though the video has since been removed), has not been refuted under this administration. The U.S. position is that the international drug treaties “take a ‘highly respectful’ stance toward member states’ domestic policies,” and much of those obligations apply, subject to each member state’s constitutional limits.

Even with the recent rescheduling order, state-licensed medical operators without DEA registration remain federally illegal and fall outside treaty scope (though this is a heavily contested issue within the international treaty community). In the face of Canada and Uruguay legalizing recreational marijuana, the Netherlands’ coffee shop model, and the Dutch and Swiss scientific adult-use pilot programs, it is difficult to argue that applying the Single Convention’s constitutional limitation to state-legal, non-DEA-registered medical marijuana programs is inappropriate. Under the U.S.’ current position, only those operators that join the federal DEA registration apparatus would be required to comply with U.S. treaty obligations. Whether DEA will take this stance, however, is unknown. Under the rescheduling order’s wording, DEA could certainly apply those obligations to state-legal, but non-DEA-registered, operators. That said, enforcing these obligations would be a nightmare for DEA. Where will the funding and staffing come from?

Q: How does the order affect dual-license operators?

Unevenly. Medical-only states stand to benefit most. Dual-license states, those with both medical and adult-use programs, face a harder path. The DEA application asks directly: “Will your firm be handling or dispensing recreational marijuana?” It would make sense if an honest “yes” results in denial. A fraudulent “no” would likely lead to worse.

There is no way DEA has the staff to personally review all applications, let alone implement the program commenced in the order. As such, it is likely DEA will take two steps to aid in review: (1) launch an initial AI review of all applications; and (2) deny as many applications as possible. Denying an application because the applicant also handles recreational marijuana seems obvious. That said, if you are a dual licensee, I still think it’s worth applying, just in case I am wrong.

Q: What happens with interstate commerce?

Interstate transfers between DEA registrants are theoretically possible, but FDA has not clarified whether they are permissible under the Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act. Until it does, such transfers carry legal risk. Enforcement discretion may fill the gap in practice, but operators should not rely on that.

Q: Can a company move product between its own DEA-registered facilities in different states?

Possibly. Internal transfers between a company’s own registered locations may not constitute a “sale” or “marketing” activity under the FDCA, potentially keeping federal food and drug law out of the picture. If so, state law governs what can ultimately be sold. Transfers between separately owned DEA registrations in different states, would remain subject to the FDC&A, so FDA guidance on this will be important. All of this remains unsettled, and operators should seek counsel before acting on that assumption.

Q: What if state law prohibits interstate transport?

State law controls DEA registration indirectly. Registration requires a valid state license. If a state enforces a ban on interstate transport through license suspension or revocation, federal authorization goes with it. Operators need to map their state-level exposure before pursuing DEA registration. If the importing state denies that transport, Dormant Commerce Clause implications would certainly follow. If the exporting state prohibits such transfers, however, it remains unclear whether the Dormant Commerce Clause would apply. What is clear is that in states where legislation has already legalized interstate transport, such transfers will likely carry far less legal uncertainty upon federal legality.

Q: Where do tribal operators stand?

In limbo. The order does not clearly address tribal eligibility for DEA registration. The application references tribal law violations, but stops short of recognizing tribal licenses as a valid basis for registration. Tribal operators should consider applying while simultaneously pursuing advocacy. Waiting for clarity may mean waiting indefinitely.

Q: What current DEA regulations will apply to state-licensed, DEA-registered medical operators, and what won’t?

21 CFR 1318 applies treaty obligations to DEA registrants operating with marijuana, so this section will certainly apply. The rescheduling order largely punts other requirements to state medical marijuana programs, leaving operators without a clear roadmap. DEA has promulgated an extensive body of regulations applicable to controlled substances and those who handle them (see 21 CFR 1300 et seq.) and it is not yet clear which of those regulations will be required of registered state-licensed operators, and which will be displaced by state law requirements.

What DEA has clarified, at least in part, is that holding a valid state license will allow registrants to bypass much of 21 CFR 1301, the section governing the registration process itself. Beyond that carve-out, however, the picture remains murky.

For now, operators pursuing registration are effectively agreeing to enter a federal regulatory framework without knowing its full contours. This is another dimension of the calculated risk that registration represents.

Q: Does acknowledging violations of federal law prior to obtaining DEA registration put an operator at greater risk than already exists?

Presumably, state-legal medical operators have been filing taxes since inception, so responding to this question in the application will not suddenly make anything newly known to the federal government. Is it a risk? Yes. But is it more of a risk than what state-legal operators have already been doing? I don’t think so.

One thing all operators should do is ensure their employees (down to the budtenders) are comfortable with their names and Social Security numbers being provided to DEA. An operator can make this disclosure a condition of employment, but they should give employees advance notice and the option to leave if they prefer not to be disclosed. Disclosing without such notice could lead to legal liability.

Q: What does this mean for patients?

Very little has changed. Medical marijuana patients remain federally illegal because the drug has not received FDA approval. Until further guidance is issued, patients should proceed as if the order does not exist: do not travel across state or international borders with marijuana, and understand that restrictions on housing and firearm ownership remain fully in effect.

Q: What does this mean, if anything, for Congress overturning the intoxicating hemp products ban effective November 12th?

I believe this order makes it less likely that Congress will pass an amendment or extend the effective date of the hemp ban. Many Republicans already oppose reversing the ban, and rescheduling has not helped. I believe many will stand firm in opposing any changes, simply as a stand against this rescheduling move by the Administration.

Conclusion

The bottom line: rescheduling is meaningful, but its practical impact is narrow, uneven, and still developing. Anyone telling you otherwise is getting ahead of the facts. If you are navigating these questions and want an objective, experienced perspective from practitioners who have been working through these issues for years — not weeks — we are happy to offer a free consultation. Reach out to our team anytime.

The post Medical Marijuana Rescheduling Q&A: Cutting Through the Noise appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

While the Acting Attorney General’s rescheduling order is likely to face legal challenges, the immediate reality is this: you have a 60-day opportunity to act. As of yesterday, April 28, state medical marijuana licensees may apply for DEA registration to manufacture (this includes cultivation and limited processing), to distribute, and to dispense medical marijuana.

The DEA dispensary application portal is already live, and applications for manufacturing and distribution are expected to follow the standard DEA Form 225 process.

We are not certain whether this framework will survive judicial review, and if so, to what extent. What is clear, however, is that only applicants who submit within this initial 60-day window are positioned for expedited review, which is to occur within six months of an applicant’s submission. The rescheduling order provides no guidance on future application rounds or timelines, leaving significant ambiguity for those who wait.

In practical terms, this creates a first-mover advantage. If DEA registration ultimately becomes the gateway to a federally recognized, and potentially global, medical cannabis market, early applicants will be best positioned to participate.

We describe this as a “lottery ticket” not because it is speculative, but because it requires an upfront investment with uncertain outcomes. Engaging experienced counsel and preparing a compliant application typically involves costs in the range of $10,000 to $15,000 (including the DEA fee), with additional costs depending on complexity, scope, and the number of DEA registrations sought. The bet is $10,000-$15,000 for a potential upside opportunity into the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.

For those prepared to move forward, we can help you navigate this process efficiently and strategically. Our team is one of very few that is experienced in DEA registrations. We can:

• Provide a clear overview of the DEA registration framework and historical precedent
• Prepare you for likely DEA follow-up inquiries and supplemental information requests
• Assist in completing and submitting your application
• Develop a comprehensive supporting package to strengthen your submission, should DEA seek supplemental information
• Advise on international treaty obligations and operational compliance considerations referenced in the order

If you are considering pursuing DEA registration during this window, we encourage you to connect with our team to discuss your options. We are available to provide a complimentary consultation and help you evaluate whether this opportunity aligns with your business strategy.

___________

For recent posts on the rescheduling order, check out the following:

• The U.S. Opens Its Medical Marijuana Market to Global Trade (For Now); Broader Marijuana Rescheduling on Deck
• Marijuana rescheduling and income tax

The post A Calculated Bet: DEA Registration is Open, and the Clock is Ticking appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

The Order went further than many of us anticipated. It also includes a short section titled “Tax Implications.” Here is that section, in whole:

“The Acting Attorney General further notes that, as a consequence of this rule, state licensees will no longer be subject to the deduction disallowance imposed by Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which applies only to businesses engaged in ‘trafficking in controlled substances . . . in a schedule I or II,’ 26 U.S.C. § 280E. Nothing in this rule constitutes a determination regarding federal tax liability, and qualifying state licensees should consult with tax counsel regarding the applicability of Section 280E to their specific circumstances.”

There is plenty to unpack in that paragraph.

“State licensees”

The Order doesn’t define “state licensee.” However, “state medical marijuana license” is now defined at 21 CFR § 1300.01 as:

“a license issued by a state entity (or by a District of Columbia entity or a federal territorial entity) authorizing the licensee to manufacture, distribute, and/or dispense marijuana or products that contain marijuana for medical purposes.”

Taxpayers holding these licenses, presumably, are “state licensees.” Many of these medical marijuana sellers may finally escape the stifling grasp of Section 280E.

Reader, I said “may.”

In states that allow only medical marijuana (e.g. Florida, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania), things appear straightforward: that is, state-licensed operators have become 280E-exempt under the Order. The marijuana being produced, processed, transferred and sold in these states all goes to cardholders—at least theoretically—and all of that marijuana is now in schedule III.

In states with adult-use programs, the analysis could be complex. All states with adult-use marijuana programs also have medical marijuana programs. Most of these states have blended their programs to varying degrees. In some states, a plant may begin in adult-use CTS, grown by a non-medical licensee, but evolve into a medical marijuana item somewhere along the supply chain. The resulting product may or may not be more potent, will likely be packaged differently, and may or may not be taxed. Invariably, though, it is transferred or sold to a medical marijuana cardholder. It has undergone a definitional transformation, if not a physical one.

The licensees in these mixed supply chains may be adult-use licensees, with “endorsements” or “registrations” or other permissions to create or handle medical marijuana products. At the grow level, the distinction is virtually meaningless—a marijuana plant is just a marijuana plant, after all. But, are these hybrid operators “state licensees” within the meaning of the Order? They handle medical marijuana, but they also traffic in non-medical marijuana. They may or may not segregate inputs; they may or may not segregate outputs. You can see where I’m going with this.

“Nothing in this rule constitutes a determination regarding federal tax liability”

In this respect, DOJ stays in its lane. Further along, though, the Order repeats the paragraph on Section 280E that I quoted above, adding one striking sentence:

“The Administrator encourages the Secretary of the Treasury to consider providing retrospective relief from Section 280E liability for taxable years in which a state licensee operated under a state medical marijuana license.”

Retrospective relief from Section 280E would be the ultimate prize for many marijuana businesses, short of an entrée to interstate commerce. The possibility is utterly tantalizing. Could it actually happen?

It could, although the Treasury need not heed the “retrospective relief” suggestion—it operates independent of DOJ in the executive branch. That said, the IRS has granted retrospective relief to taxpayers on numerous occasions, most recently last month in relation to OBBA tax credits. OBBA was signed into law in July of 2025, yet the IRS will allow taxpayers to amend returns as far back as 2022 for purposes of making certain elections.

However the Service proceeds, marijuana taxpayers would be wise to heed the Order’s advice to consult with tax counsel. An exception involves tax counsel who argue that Section 280E doesn’t apply to any marijuana businesses whatsoever. In that case, please read this.

What’s next for marijuana rescheduling, and tax

I’ll be watching three things.

First, I’ll be watching for Treasury guidance. On Thursday, April 23, the Treasury and IRS promptly announced such guidance is forthcoming. The press release forecasts:

“a transition rule providing that, for purposes of Section 280E, rescheduling generally will be considered to first apply for a business’s full taxable year that includes the effective date of the Final Order…”.

For most marijuana businesses, that will be calendar year 2026.

Second, I’ll be watching for litigation. The Order will be litigated. The fundamental question is whether DOJ exceeded its authority in issuing the Order. Challengers will argue, inter alia, that: 1) the Order undercut an ongoing rescheduling process, not yet withdrawn; 2) that the Order’s heavy reliance on international treaty compliance, and specifically, its permissive reading of a 2024 Office of Legal Counsel opinion on that issue, is flawed; and 3) that the bifurcation of marijuana into medical and non-medical channels by DOJ, outside of FDA purview, is statutorily incoherent.

Third, I’ll be watching for adult use rescheduling. In its press release announcing the Order, DOJ announced it would also “expedite the ongoing rulemaking process required to fully remove marijuana from Schedule I and place it in Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act.” This rulemaking would apply to all marijuana, and not just medical marijuana. DOJ says DEA will “commence a new administrative hearing beginning June 26, 2026.” How that would work in an agency that no longer has an administrative law judge is a very good question. We’ll save it for another day.

For now, medical marijuana is in schedule III. State licensees should watch these further developments, but also focus on things they can control. These include: 1) consulting with tax counsel; 2) revisiting accounting practices, especially where allocations to medical marijuana may be distinguishable from allocations to non-medical marijuana; and 3) recall that local tax laws still apply—including state laws limiting certain deductions for all marijuana businesses.

The post Marijuana Rescheduling and Income Tax appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

The U.S. has joined much of the world in acknowledging medical marijuana. Let international trading begin!

Effective April 28, 2026, the acting Attorney General “hereby order[s] that FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana, as well marijuana in any form covered by a state medical marijuana license, be placed in schedule III of the CSA.” Based on this order, the United States acknowledges medical marijuana and has a fully functioning medical marijuana program (via state licensees). The final order applies to: (a) marijuana as listed in 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(23), (b) marijuana extracts as defined in 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(58), and (c) naturally occurring Delta-9-THC derived from the marijuana plant (other than the mature stalks and seeds). The order does not reschedule all marijuana. Any marijuana or marijuana extract not covered by this order (i.e. state-legal adult-use marijuana) remains in schedule I and will be subject to a new rescheduling hearing scheduled for June 29, 2026 at 9 a.m. ET.

This order went much further than expected. I wrote last year about the limits of moving marijuana to schedule III, and how such a move would not legalize state-licensees without regulatory change. This order does just that. It amends DEA regulations to legalize state licensees. Whether such amendments will withstand judicial scrutiny remains to be seen.

How the order was issued

As I wrote about previously, all it took to reschedule was a press release and stroke of a pen. Although, it was not so much a stroke of a pen as a 23-page order outlining the current move and future process. This move does not appear to place marijuana in Schedule III; rather, it places certain formulations of marijuana in schedule III–namely FDA approved products and, more impactfully, medical marijuana products that “are subject to a state-issued license to manufacture, distribute, and/or dispense marijuana products containing marijuana for medical purposes.”

It is important to note that this is a final order being issued under 21 USC 811(d)(1) and not a proposed rule. Section 811(d)(1) allows the Attorney General to reschedule a substance if doing so would place the U.S. in better alignment with its international treaty obligations. I have written about this many times over the years, and provided position papers to DEA on utilizing this mechanism. Using 811(d)(1), the DOJ and DEA are not required to obtain a recommendation from HHS, though one was provided in 2023.

In its order, DEA also takes pains to highlight the HHS findings in its 2023 recommendation, supporting today’s move, even though such support is not needed. The acting Attorney General stated that “[a]lthough I am not required to consider this HHS recommendation when issuing an order under section 811(d)(1), because I believe there are several legally viable scheduling options that would satisfy the United States’ obligations under the Single Convention . . . . I exercise my discretion in determining the most appropriate schedule by choosing the option that most closely aligns to HHS’s findings and best position the United States to carry out its obligations under the Single Convention.”

Registration requirements

State-licensed medical marijuana operators

The final order establishes an expedited registration process under 21 CFR 1301 for state-licensed medical marijuana entities to register for a DEA license to manufacture, distribute, and dispense marijuana for medical purposes under federal law. This means that state licensed medical marijuana operators will be permitted to apply for DEA registrations, something DEA has prohibited in the past.

The Attorney General determined that state-licensed regulatory systems have developed robust infrastructure for preventing diversion, ensuring product safety, proper record retention, and proper facility inspections, all of which fulfill the objectives of federal registration and recordkeeping requirements. Taken as a whole, these systems “demonstrate a sustained capacity to achieve the public-interest objectives that underlie the CSA’s registration framework, including protecting public health and safety and preventing the diversion of controlled substances into illicit channels.” As such, the Attorney General determined that “incorporating state licensing systems into the federal registration framework represents the most effective and efficient means of achieving the CSA’s objectives.” The Attorney General and DEA preserve authority, however, to deny or revoke registration where specific public interest concerns arise, and to ensure compliance with the Single Convention.

Based on this state-federal partnership, DEA will amend part 1301 of its regulations to provide an expedited review process under which state licensees may submit their existing state credentials as conclusive evidence of state authorization to receive DEA registration for manufacturing, distribution, and dispensaries. Importantly, the DEA must grant registration unless doing so would be inconsistent with the public interest under 21 USC 823 factors or under the Single Convention. Applications submitted within 60 days of publication must be processed within six months, and early applicants may lawfully operate under their state-issued license during the pendency of review.

State registrants may also rely on state-law labeling, packaging, disposal, and physical security requirements in lieu of the federal requirements, subject to inclusion of the statutory warning label required by 21 USC 825(c).

FDA-approved marijuana operators

The following outlines the schedule III regulatory requirements that now apply “for those who handle marijuana exclusively in the form of an FDA-approved drug product”:

1. Any person who handles FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana must be registered with the DEA to conduct such activities for a schedule III substance.
2. Entities that transfer marijuana to patients, including dispensaries, must register with the DEA as “practitioners” under 21 USC 823(g).
3. Schedule III FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana must be disposed of in accordance with 21 CFR 1317, in addition to other applicable state and federal requirements.
4. DEA registrant applicants must pay the annual DEA fee for registration, which are: (1) Manufacturer: $3,999 annually; (2) Distributors: $1,850 annually; and (3) Dispensaries, including pharmacies: $888 for a registration valid for 3 years.
5. Prescriptions are required to be issued prior to dispensing FDA approved marijuana drugs and must contain specific information.
6. All DEA registrants must maintain records as required by federal law and submit reports with respect to FDA-approved drugs.
7. All DEA registrants must comply with DEA security requirements, labeling and packaging, and inventory requirements.

International trade and import/export and DEA authority

Imports and exports

As I have argued along with colleagues, this move to schedule III will also require amending DEA’s regulations to account for US obligations under the Single Convention with marijuana being moved into Schedule III. In DOJ’s final order, it acknowledged the same, stating that “DEA must simultaneously amend the regulations to require a permit to import or export such products.”

This order specifically states that “this order amends the DEA regulations (21 CFR 1312.30) to add FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana and state-licensed medical marijuana to the list of nonnarcotic schedule III through V controlled substances that are subject to the import and export permit requirement.” Registering with the DEA will allow state licenses to potentially access the international market, as DEA registrants can apply for and receive import and export licenses. Another important amendment is that DEA addressed its regulatory definition of “medicinal cannabis,” which DEA created out of thin air, to exempt state legal medical marijuana from the requirement that medicinal cannabis be FDA approved and legal to market under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

DEA will become a part of the state medical marijuana supply chain

Registration with the DEA will be essential for state medical marijuana licensees, because DEA will be responsible for purchasing and selling the marijuana grown by state licensees as required by DEA’s regulations and the Single Convention. “By maintaining in schedule I all unlicensed marijuana, bulk marijuana, and any marijuana or marijuana extract that has not yet been incorporated into a FDA-approved drug product, and by requiring that state-licensed marijuana satisfy the requirements relating to the purchase and sale of marijuana by DEA, the United States will continue to meet these obligations without disruption or delay.”

The rule also establishes a nominal price purchase-and-resale mechanism through which the DEA acquires and resells registered manufacturers’ marijuana crops, to satisfy Single Convention requirements. Query: do we really expect DEA to take possession of all flower sales within state systems? As the order is written, registered manufacturers must store crops in DEA maintained facilities until the transaction is complete, and each registrant must provide DEA information on the exact location where medical marijuana is cultivated.

Research

Researchers who obtain marijuana or marijuana derived products from state licensees for use in scientific research are shielded from civil and criminal liability under the CSA, provided that the researcher is registered with the DEA. This now allows for state medical marijuana and products to be researched.

I.R.C. 280E

The order acknowledges that state medical licensees will no longer be subject to I.R.C. 280E, but does not make a determination on their tax status and suggests they speak to a tax consultant when making their tax determination. It goes on further to encourage the “Secretary of Treasury to consider providing retrospective relief from Section 280E liability for taxable years in which a state licensee operated under a state medical marijuana license.” Importantly, 280E will likely be a nightmare for those operating in dual licensing states where both adult-use and medical often operate under once license. Many operators, including the large multi-state operators, do not keep distinct records. Since only licensed medical operations qualify for 280E relief, unless these companies can separate their books–and in some cases their licenses–they will likely remain subject to 280E.

What the order does not cover

This order does not apply to: (1) anything that does not fall into the FDA-approved marijuana; (2) any products and operators not licensed by a state’s medical marijuana program; (3) synthetically derived THC (e.g. delta-10 THC) which remains in schedule I; and (4) Any hemp product exceeding 0.4mg after November 12^th. Anyone dealing with non-FDA approved medical marijuana or state licensed medical marijuana will remain in violation of federal law as it relates to a schedule I controlled substance.

It appears that current DEA registrants manufacturing bulk marijuana will also remain in Schedule I, since they are neither FDA approved nor legalized under state legal medical marijuana programs.

Outstanding issues

Some outstanding questions remain. For instance, as a discuss above re: 280E, how will dual licensees that provide both adult-use and medical marijuana be treated? For example, in Arizona marijuana sold as adult-use or medical is not designated as such until the point of sale. How will medical marijuana versus the adult-use be tracked for schedule III, and more importantly, 280E purposes? One thing is likely certain: those operating in these dual licensed states that comingle medical and adult-use marijuana (whether through inventory or via the company’s books) will almost certainly be ineligible for the early expedited DEA registration discussed above.

Upcoming DEA administrative law hearing

The Attorney Generals order does not reschedule all marijuana. Anything not included in this order will be subject to a new administrative law hearing, which is scheduled to commence on June 29, 2026, at 9 a.m. ET. The result of this hearing will determine whether all “marijuana” is moved into schedule III.

Certain legal challenges

DEA does acknowledge in footnote thirty-nine that if any of the order is found illegal, the rest of the provisions shall remain. This acknowledges the reality that litigation will certainly ensue–if it hasn’t already. Smart Approaches to Marijuana will certainly bring litigation challenging the Attorney general and DEA’s authority to issue this order and the rules related to it. While the Attorney General’s Authority to reschedule a substance under 811(d)(1) is clear, its ability to amend operational and registration regulations under the same authority is not as clear. We will be keeping a close eye on this as things progress and will publish updates as they occur.

In the meantime, if you are a state licensed medical marijuana operator, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our team about DEA registration. Further, if you are a foreign medical marijuana operator looking to explore US opportunities, they finally exist (at least for now).

____

For previous insights on marijuana rescheduling, please check out these blog posts:

• Marijuana to Schedule III is Necessary, But Let’s Be Honest About Its Limits
• One Signature Could Remove Marijuana From Schedule I Tomorrow
• Trump’s Cannabis Plays, Explained
• Is Marijuana Rescheduling Finally Happening? What to Know, Now
• President Trump Issues Executive Order Directing the Attorney General to Reschedule Marijuana

The post The U.S. Opens Its Medical Marijuana Market to Global Trade (For Now); Broader Marijuana Rescheduling on Deck appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.