Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 JUNE 2024

Proposed Cannabis Reschedule Sidesteps State Law Effects

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Explore more from Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP

On May 21, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice's proposed rules to move marijuana to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act were published in the Federal Register.

United StatesCannabis & Hemp
Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
Author LinkedIn connections

On May 21, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice's proposed rules to move marijuana to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act were published in the Federal Register. Public comments will be solicited for 60 days from that date, and hearings will be scheduled before final rules are adopted.

Despite widespread media reports heralding the "game-changing" nature of this development, the DOJ's proposed rulemaking leaves the cannabis industry with more questions than answers.

The DOJ explicitly warns that (1) "if marijuana is transferred into Schedule III, the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, and possession of marijuana would remain subject to the applicable criminal prohibitions of the CSA [Controlled Substances Act]," and (2) marijuana would remain subject to the limitations within the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.1

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

See more popular content from

Article

The Intoxicating Hemp Products Ban Was Delayed A Month. Now What?

The House has passed a short-term funding bill postponing the federal ban on hemp-derived THC products from November 12th to December 11th. With comprehensive legislation unlikely before the new deadline and competing interests from cannabis sellers, alcohol producers, and state regulators creating policy gridlock, the future of intoxicating hemp products remains uncertain as midterm elections approach.
United StatesCannabis & Hemp
Harris Sliwoski
Harris Sliwoski
Article

IRC Section 280E And Cannabis Tax Planning: Recent Developments And Practical Considerations

The landscape surrounding Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code continues to evolve with President Trump's Executive Order on medical marijuana rescheduling, advancing litigation in New Mexico Top Organics v. Commissioner, and shifting regulatory signals. Cannabis taxpayers face critical decisions about taking "non-280E" positions on their tax returns while the IRS maintains its enforcement stance and the U.S. Tax Court case addressing common arguments remains pending.
United StatesCannabis & Hemp
Foley Hoag LLP
Foley Hoag LLP
Article

"Marijuana" Rescheduling Delayed, Again. What It Could Mean, And What Comes Next

The DEA's marijuana rescheduling hearing has been unexpectedly stayed following a motion to admit a new GAO report examining agency scheduling procedures. With the proceeding on hold and the medical marijuana Schedule III order facing legal challenges in the D.C. Circuit, the cannabis industry's path to federal tax relief through rescheduling has become increasingly uncertain.
United StatesCannabis & Hemp
Harris Sliwoski
Harris Sliwoski
Article

SB 54 Is In Effect: What California’s New Packaging Law Means For Your Business

Although being challenged by an injunction filed on August 20, 2026, by a coalition of 17 states, California’s SB 54 Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act is now in effect, and companies that sell, distribute, import, or ship packaged products into California should be evaluating whether they have compliance obligations.
United StatesPrivacy
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Article

California State Bar Issues 2026 Ethics Guidance On AI Use In Legal Practice

Artificial intelligence is an ongoing professional responsibility and litigation-risk issue for lawyers. The California State Bar recently published new guidance. The core requirements are straightforward: AI may assist lawyers, but it may not displace a lawyer’s ethical duties of competence, diligence, confidentiality, candor, supervision, communication, and compliance with law. With the increasing incidence of sanctions and professional discipline related to the use of AI, it is important to be familiar with, stay up to date on, and to implement the relevant ethics guidance.
United StatesTechnology
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Article

Navigating Ex Parte Contact With Health Care Providers In Medical Malpractice Litigation

In Snyder v. Virginia Mason Medical Center, No. 104136-5 (Wash. Oct. 1, 2026), the Washington Supreme Court held that corporate defense counsel, risk managers, and claims adjusters may not communicate ex parte with a hospital’s former employee health care providers about patient care. The Court reaffirmed Loudon v. Mhyre, 110 Wn.2d 675, 756 P.2d 138 (1988) prohibiting ex parte communication by defense counsel with a plaintiff’s treating physicians, held that prejudice is presumed when Loudon is violated, and ruled that a quality improvement (QI) committee member’s involvement in defense strategy waives the committee’s statutory privilege under Wash. Rev. Code § 70.41.200.
United StatesFood, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Article

California Closes The Third-Party Data Gap In The CCPA Right To Delete: What SB 923 Requires, From Whom, And When

On September 27, 2026, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 923 (Chapter 482, Statutes of 2026), known as the Expanding Privacy Rights Act. The law amends two provisions of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): (1) the right to delete (Civil Code § 1798.105); and (2) the methods for submitting consumer requests (Civil Code § 1798.130). The legislation was authored by Senator Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) and sponsored by the California Privacy Protection Agency (also known as CalPrivacy). This amendment takes effect January 1, 2027.
United StatesPrivacy
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Article

Humanoid Robots In The Home – A New Frontier For Product Liability And Privacy Claims

Humanoid robots are entering American homes at an unprecedented pace, with companies like Figure AI, Unitree, and Tesla deploying AI-powered machines capable of learning and adapting in real time. As these autonomous devices become commonplace, outdated legal frameworks governing product liability, privacy protections, and insurance coverage face mounting pressure to address novel risks ranging from physical injuries to unauthorized biometric data collection.
United StatesConsumer Protection
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Article

Employment Tip Of The Month – October 2026

There are currently 19 states that legally require employers to permit employees (and sometimes former employees) to view and/or obtain a copy of their personnel file. As of November 8, 2026, that number will increase to 20, when New York’s recently enacted Personnel Records Access Law goes into effect. The majority of states have no law requiring access to personnel files and there is no federal law that confers on current or former employees a statutory right to access their personnel files.
United StatesEmployment and HR
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP