SAM Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging DOJ Cannabis Rescheduling

Smart Approaches to Marijuana and a national drug screening trade group have filed a federal lawsuit seeking to halt the Department of Justice's cannabis rescheduling action, creating an unusual legal challenge to a policy announced by the Trump administration itself.

The lawsuit, filed by SAM and the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association, enlists a law firm where a former Trump administration attorney general serves as partner. The legal challenge targets the DOJ's January announcement moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act—a policy shift that would maintain federal prohibition while easing certain restrictions.

The case marks a significant development in the ongoing rescheduling saga that began under the Biden administration. After the DEA proposed the Schedule III move in May 2024, the Trump DOJ finalized the action in early 2025, creating what many saw as rare bipartisan continuity on cannabis policy. Now that continuity faces its first major legal test.

The Legal Strategy

SAM, led by former Rep. Patrick Kennedy, has consistently opposed any loosening of federal marijuana restrictions. The organization argues that rescheduling ignores scientific evidence about cannabis harms and undermines public health protections. NDASA represents workplace drug testing companies whose business models depend heavily on current federal scheduling.

The choice of law firm adds a layer of complexity to the case. By retaining attorneys connected to Trump's previous administration, the plaintiffs may be betting on institutional knowledge of DOJ decision-making processes. Yet they're simultaneously challenging a policy that Trump's own Justice Department advanced.

Legal experts note that challenging rescheduling faces substantial procedural hurdles. The Administrative Procedure Act allows challenges to federal agency actions, but plaintiffs must demonstrate standing—proving they've suffered direct harm from the policy. For SAM and NDASA, that means showing how Schedule III classification specifically injures their organizational missions or members.

Industry Implications

The lawsuit introduces new uncertainty into an already complex regulatory environment. Cannabis operators have been preparing for Schedule III's implementation, which would allow businesses to claim standard tax deductions currently prohibited under IRS Code 280E. That change alone could save multi-state operators millions annually.

"We're seeing companies hold off on major financial decisions until this plays out," said one cannabis industry attorney who requested anonymity. "Nobody wants to restructure based on Schedule III assumptions if there's a chance it gets blocked."

The timing also complicates state-level reform efforts. Several state legislatures are considering adult-use legalization bills, with proponents pointing to federal rescheduling as evidence of shifting national policy. A successful lawsuit could undermine that narrative.

What's Next

The case will likely be assigned to a federal district court in the coming weeks. DOJ attorneys will need to file a response defending the rescheduling action—meaning Trump administration lawyers will argue against the lawsuit filed by prohibition advocates using a firm tied to Trump's former AG.

If the district court allows the case to proceed, litigation could extend for months or years through the appeals process. Meanwhile, the Schedule III reclassification remains in effect unless a court issues an injunction.

The cannabis industry will be watching closely to see whether other prohibition groups join the lawsuit or file separate challenges. SAM and NDASA may be testing the waters for a broader legal campaign against federal reform efforts.

For now, the lawsuit represents a new front in the decades-long battle over federal marijuana policy—one that places Trump administration officials in the unusual position of defending a reform measure against conservative-leaning opponents.

---

This article is based on original reporting by www.marijuanamoment.net.