
Daniel T. McKillop
Partner
201-896-7115 dmckillop@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Daniel T. McKillop
Date: May 14, 2024

Partner
201-896-7115 dmckillop@sh-law.com
On April 30, 2024, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) confirmed that it plans to recommend that cannabis be removed from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and reclassified to Schedule III. Schedule I drugs are drugs with “high abuse potential with no accepted medical use,” such as heroin. Meanwhile, Schedule III drugs have accepted medical value but are available legally only with a prescription. This is the most significant federal drug policy shift in 50 years.
“Today, the Attorney General circulated a proposal to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III,” Justice Department director of public affairs Xochitl Hinojosa said in a statement to the Associated Press. “Once published by the Federal Register, it will initiate a formal rulemaking process as prescribed by Congress in the Controlled Substances Act.”
The DEA’s reclassification decision means that it has generally accepted the findings from a nearly year-long scientific review into cannabis conducted by the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) at the request of the Biden Administration. This review resulted in HHS’s determination that cannabis “has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” and has a “potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in Schedules I and II.” HHS also recommended to the DEA that cannabis be rescheduled.
While the DEA’s policy shift is significant, it is important to recognize its limitations. Notably, the decision does not make cannabis federally legal and does not expunge prior cannabis convictions.
Rescheduling would enable state-legal cannabis entities to take federal tax deductions that were previously unavailable pursuant to Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code. As discussed in greater detail here, Section 280E prohibits businesses involved in “trafficking” in cannabis or any other Schedule I or II drugs from deducting rent, payroll, and various other expenses that other businesses can write off, often resulting in an effective tax rate of 70% or more. Section 280E doesn’t apply to Schedule III drugs, so the DEA’s proposed change would substantially reduce cannabis companies’ tax liability.
Additionally, rescheduling marijuana would facilitate greater cannabis research and development for therapeutic uses, which is precluded with respect to Schedule I substances. Rescheduling, however, would likely require state-legal cannabis entities to comply with federal production, record-keeping, and prescribing requirements for Schedule III drugs.
Rescheduling would not make cannabis federally legal. Accordingly, participants in state cannabis markets would still be in violation of federal law, and existing criminal penalties for certain marijuana-related activity would remain in force. Also, rescheduling would not expunge existing cannabis convictions.
Rescheduling would not enable state-licensed businesses to transact in interstate commerce, and it would also not necessarily facilitate banking services for cannabis entities. Other proposed federal reforms, including the SAFER Banking Act, are being considered towards this end now. You can find a detailed discussion here.
Many cannabis stocks surged following the DEA announcement, with stock prices for some national companies rising as much as 37 percent. State cannabis markets will likely be unaffected in the short to medium term, although relief from 280E tax restrictions may spur additional interest in obtaining state cannabis licenses.
The full impact of the DEA’s policy shift will not be felt for some time, as the rescheduling process will take months. The DEA proposal will first be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget; then, there will be a public notice and comment period and review by an administrative judge. The DEA will then publish the final rule in the Federal Register, and after a waiting period, the new law will become effective.
Notably, on at least one prior occasion, the DEA has issued a final rule in similar circumstances without public notice and comment. If the DEA does so here (perhaps to coincide with the coming general election in November), the timeline may speed up. However, given the range of stakeholders and the historical impact of cannabis rescheduling, this seems unlikely. In any event, legal challenges to any revision to the CSA may delay the effective date of the new law into 2025.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

New Jersey residential developers with affordable housing obligations should carefully review their existing approvals, development agreements, and proposed deed restrictions in light of the State’s revised UHAC regulations (Uniform Housing Affordability Controls). The regulations, which took effect on November 6, 2025, significantly change the administration and physical requirements for affordable housing units. For developers with […]
Author: Wendy Rubinstein Quiroga

A “no comment” response is sometimes the right call when a legal problem arises. As a blanket policy, however, it lets allegations go unanswered, deadlines pass, evidence disappear, and manageable disputes grow into expensive litigation. The businesses that fare best are usually the ones that say little publicly while acting decisively behind the scenes. When […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Utility-scale battery energy storage systems (BESS) are becoming an increasingly important component of the electric grid throughout New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. As renewable generation expands, electricity demand increases and grid operators seek greater flexibility, battery storage can help balance supply and demand while providing additional capacity and reliability. For developers, battery storage presents […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

A falling out between partners can be disastrous for any business. In many cases, the partnership will not survive. If you are in an unworkable situation with your partners, it may be time to consult a partnership dispute lawyer experienced in handling partnership breakups and dissolutions before the situation deteriorates any further. It is easy […]
Author: Jay McDaniel

When a company enters Chapter 11 bankruptcy, many assume the process will culminate in a lengthy reorganization plan. However, distressed businesses are increasingly being sold through a different mechanism — a sale under Section 363 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. A Section 363 sale allows a company, as a debtor-in-possession in bankruptcy, to sell […]
Author: John D. Giampolo

Before buying property, it is critical to determine whether local zoning laws may affect your plans. If you plan to redevelop the property, you will want to confirm that local zoning regulations permit development as intended. If acquiring property that is already developed, you must verify that the use is permitted in the underlying zoning […]
Author: Wendy Rubinstein Quiroga
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!