[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"news-article-federal-court-rejects-bid-to-block-trump-cannabis-rescheduling-move-b7eeee8d":3},{"data":4},{"_id":5,"slug":6,"articleType":7,"body":8,"createdAt":15,"dek":16,"entities":17,"headline":29,"imageAlt":30,"imageUrl":31,"keyFacts":32,"language":49,"publishedAt":50,"seo":51,"sources":54,"summary":59,"updatedAt":60},"6aa1b2c05457399f4e5dcfb7","federal-court-rejects-bid-to-block-trump-cannabis-rescheduling-move-b7eeee8d","regulation",[9,10,11,12,13,14],"A federal appeals court has rejected a request from a drug testing industry association and a pharmaceutical company to block the Trump administration from moving forward with federal cannabis rescheduling while ongoing litigation challenging the reform is considered.","The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the petitioners had not satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending court review. The National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association and MMJ International Holdings had argued that marijuana abuse has dangerous, lifelong consequences and that rescheduling would stimulate the industry and increase abuse.","The Department of Justice opposed the stay request, saying the challengers have pocketbook interests served by keeping marijuana in Schedule I and are not the intended beneficiaries of the Controlled Substances Act.","The court also rejected a motion from two medical marijuana companies to intervene in the rescheduling lawsuit on the government's side, finding they failed to show their interests were not adequately represented by existing parties. The companies will be allowed to file amicus briefs.","The appeals court is weighing three consolidated lawsuits against the proposal to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. Parties were directed to submit proposed briefing formats within 30 days, with the court urging a joint proposal and warning against repetitious submissions.","The ruling comes as the Drug Enforcement Administration has filed final briefs supporting rescheduling, stating that marijuana no longer fits Schedule I requirements because it has currently accepted medical use and accepted safety under medical supervision. The DEA asked the judge overseeing the hearing to expeditiously recommend transferring marijuana to Schedule III.","2026-09-09T19:25:52.653Z","A D.C. appeals court denied a stay sought by a drug testing association and a pharmaceutical company, allowing federal cannabis rescheduling to proceed during litigation.",{"brands":18,"products":19,"markets":20,"organizations":22},[],[],[21],"US",[23,24,25,26,27,28],"National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA)","MMJ International Holdings","Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM)","U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia","Department of Justice (DOJ)","Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)","Federal Court Rejects Bid to Block Trump Cannabis Rescheduling Move","Federal courthouse exterior with cannabis leaf symbol overlay representing the appeals court ruling on marijuana rescheduling.","",[33,37,40,43,46],{"claim":34,"sourceUrl":35,"_id":36},"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected a stay request from NDASA and MMJ International Holdings to block cannabis rescheduling.","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.marijuanamoment.net\u002Ffederal-court-rejects-marijuana-opponents-request-to-block-trumps-rescheduling-move\u002F","6aa1b2c0723e26a876e0cd93",{"claim":38,"sourceUrl":35,"_id":39},"The court ruled that petitioners had not satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending court review.","6aa1b2c0723e26a876e0cd94",{"claim":41,"sourceUrl":35,"_id":42},"The Department of Justice argued the challengers have pocketbook interests served by keeping marijuana in Schedule I.","6aa1b2c0723e26a876e0cd95",{"claim":44,"sourceUrl":35,"_id":45},"The court denied a motion from two medical marijuana companies to intervene in the rescheduling lawsuit but allowed them to file amicus briefs.","6aa1b2c0723e26a876e0cd96",{"claim":47,"sourceUrl":35,"_id":48},"The DEA stated in its final brief that marijuana no longer fits Schedule I requirements because it has currently accepted medical use and accepted safety under medical supervision.","6aa1b2c0723e26a876e0cd97","en","2026-09-09T19:25:54.938Z",{"title":52,"description":53},"Court Rejects Bid to Block Cannabis Rescheduling","A federal appeals court denied a stay request from cannabis rescheduling opponents, allowing the Trump administration's reform effort to proceed during litigation.",[55],{"name":56,"url":35,"trustTier":57,"_id":58},"Marijuana Moment","trade","6aa1b2c0723e26a876e0cd92","The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia refused to pause the Trump administration's cannabis rescheduling effort, ruling that opponents failed to meet the strict requirements for a stay. The court also declined to let two medical marijuana companies intervene in the case, though they may file amicus briefs.","2026-09-09T19:25:54.940Z"]