Overview of the President’s December 18th Executive Order and the Implications When Marijuana is Rescheduled to Schedule III under the U.S. Controlled Substances Act
TOP-LINE SUMMARY
The President signed an Executive Order on December 18, 2025, ordering his administration to move expeditiously to reschedule marijuana to Schedule III under the U.S. Controlled Substances Act. A final rule to reschedule marijuana has not yet been issued by the Department of Justice. The timeline for a final rule remains unknown, and until there is a final rule, marijuana remains Schedule I.
Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III will:
- Remove the applicability of section 280E of the federal tax code, allowing marijuana businesses to deduct all standard business expenses in accordance with federal law, even if the Schedule III marijuana product is not a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved drug.
- Potentially make it easier to obtain and maintain a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) registration as a Schedule III research facility to research marijuana.Unless otherwise specified through new agency rules or policies, rescheduling marijuana will not:
- Change the federal status of state-regulated markets, which would remain non-compliant with U.S. federal law.
- Allow marijuana products that are not FDA-approved drugs to be prescribed by a doctor for a medical condition.
- Legalize interstate commerce. Interstate commerce of Schedule III drugs requires approval from the FDA, and necessary approvals and licenses under the Controlled Substances Act, as issued by DEA.
- Allow for the use of real-world cannabis products in human research, unless they meet FDA requirements for safety and quality through an Investigational New Drug (IND) Application.
- Change existing industry guidance from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), unless new guidance is released by the U.S. Department of Treasury.
- Change federal drug testing requirements, unless otherwise specified by appropriate federal agencies.
- Change criminal penalties for individuals found to be trafficking marijuana.
Read the rest here (PDF)
Komorn Law, founded in 1993, brings decades of seasoned experience to Michigan’s most complex criminal and regulatory matters, including the evolving cannabis framework from the MMMA to today’s MRTMA landscape. The firm represents clients facing controlled‑substance offenses, DUI and drug‑related driving charges, firearm violations, property crimes, resisting or obstructing, and the most serious allegations such as manslaughter and homicide. With a proven record in courts across Michigan and the federal system, Komorn Law delivers strategic, relentless advocacy when the stakes are highest. To work with a firm that truly refuses to back down, call 248-357-2550.
More
A Motion in Limine – What does it Mean?
Defininition and Explaination - Motion in LimineA motion in limine is a pretrial request asking the judge to exclude (or sometimes allow) specific evidence before the jury ever hears it. It’s one of the most important evidentiary tools in both criminal and civil...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Threat of Terrorism
Case Summary In People v Kvasnicka, the defendant sent a message to a young girl stating she “would not be laughing” when he came to her school to “shoot it up or blow it up like Columbine.” Charged under Michigan’s threat‑of‑terrorism statute, he argued the law was...
What is a Franks Hearing?
What is a Frank's Hearing?A Franks hearing is a critical legal tool used when a defendant claims that police lied, exaggerated, or recklessly disregarded the truth in a search warrant affidavit. When law enforcement places its hand on the Constitution, the law...
Michigan House Bill Proposes 32% Tax on Internet Devices for Kids
Taxed Again..? They're working on it.A newly introduced Michigan House bill would impose a 32% excise tax on smartphones, tablets, gaming systems, and other internet‑connected devices marketed to or primarily used by minors. Lawmakers backing the proposal argue the...
Shadow cash is corrupting Michigan courtrooms
The Shadow Cash Threat: Protecting the Integrity of Michigan Courtrooms In recent months, a spotlight has been cast on a hidden influence within the Michigan legal system: "shadow cash." This term refers to third-party litigation funding (TPLF), where outside...
Michigan judge charged in stealing from incapacitated adults
No Good Headline to Lead with HereSummary Federal prosecutors have charged a 36th District Court judge and three associates with orchestrating a long‑running financial scheme that diverted funds from incapacitated adults under court‑appointed guardianship. The...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Prisoner in Possession
Prisoner in Possession of a Controlled SubstanceCase Summary In People v Tadgerson, the Michigan Supreme Court addressed a critical question: does the crime of a prisoner possessing a controlled substance under MCL 800.281(4) require proof of intent, or is it a...
What is Inference Stacking?
What Is Inference Stacking? A Legal ExplanationInference stacking—also called pyramiding of inferences—is a rule of evidence that prohibits courts or juries from building one inference on top of another when the first inference is not supported by direct evidence....
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Murder
Case Summary In People v Jones, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed whether a single act of abuse can support convictions for both first‑degree child abuse and felony murder. The defendant argued that using the same conduct to support both charges violated...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Neglect of Duty
Case Summary In People v Harper, a Wayne County Sheriff’s deputy was charged with neglect of duty after witnessing an inmate escape during his smoke break and taking no action to stop or pursue the prisoner. The prosecution relied on the Sheriff’s Department policy...
