Marijuana Rescheduling’s Next Stage Is Crucial for Employers

The federal government is revamping its approach to marijuana. The Justice Department and Drug Enforcement Administration’s rescheduling of some marijuana products from Schedule I to Schedule III may raise questions for employers who conduct drug testing.

Although the move likely won’t require most companies to change their drug-testing policies and procedures in the short term, it could be the start of a broader rescheduling initiative that would have greater consequences for employers.

Marijuana Classification

Drugs are classified by the federal government under the Controlled Substances Act according to a classification system of Schedules I through V, depending on whether a drug has an accepted medical use and its potential for dependency or abuse. Schedule I drugs “are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse,” and include heroin, ecstasy, and LSD. By contrast, Schedule III drugs “are defined as drugs with a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence” and include ketamine, anabolic steroids, and testosterone.

Marijuana has long been classified as a Schedule I drug, making it essentially illegal at the federal level. Despite this federal classification, 40 states have legalized marijuana for medical purposes, and 24 states have legalized recreational use for adults. The federal government is now poised to follow this trend of relaxing legal treatment of cannabis.

The DEA and DOJ in April rescheduled certain marijuana products from Schedule I to Schedule III drugs, following President Donald Trump’s December 2025 executive order, “Increasing Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research.”

The federal rescheduling applies to “FDA-approved drug products that contain [delta-9 THC] falling within the CSA’s definition of marijuana” and “marijuana subject to a state medical license.” This doesn’t make recreational marijuana legal, but it does legitimize state-regulated medical marijuana programs. The change may affect growers and sellers of covered products, but it also may prompt employers to re-evaluate drug testing policies in their workplaces.

Drug Testing Impact

Marijuana is the most commonly used drug in the US. The National Center for Drug Abuse Statistics estimates that 61.5 million people, or 23.4% of US adults, used marijuana in 2024, and that 44 million Americans used marijuana monthly. With states continuing to expand legalization, it stands to reason that use is even more widespread today.

Accordingly, employers are no stranger to navigating state laws that allow some use of marijuana. But what does this change in the federal approach mean?

For most employers, probably not much. One of the more notable exceptions is for employers that employ commercial-driver’s-license drivers regulated by the Department of Transportation. The DOT’s mandatory testing authority flows through the Department of Health and Human Services, which issues the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs. The guidelines authorize regulated employers to test only for substances listed in Schedules I and II of the Controlled Substances Act. The DOT is actively monitoring the federal government’s efforts to reschedule cannabis and will act, if necessary.

There is debate as to whether HHS can authorize testing for a Schedule III substance or whether new rulemaking will be necessary. However, the likely resolution is a congressional or administrative carve-out that preserves mandatory marijuana testing for safety-sensitive transportation workers regardless of scheduling status. Businesses that employ commercial-driver’s-license drivers should pay close attention to these developments and be ready to respond as updates are published.

Employers generally have the right to set and enforce drug policies (consistent with applicable laws) at their workplaces. This can include zero-tolerance policies, policies requiring that employees not be under the influence of drugs at work, and policies designed to support workplace safety. The federal rescheduling doesn’t change this.

Employers also can conduct drug testing of their employees. This can include regular, random, pre-employment, post-incident, and suspicion-based testing. Employers should maintain documentation and ensure consistent application and enforcement of their policies. The federal rescheduling doesn’t change this, either.

But employers should be cautious. Many states that have medical cannabis programs—which may be legitimized by the rescheduling—include reasonable accommodation protections for users of medical marijuana. The potential federal imprimatur of those programs may encourage more employees to pursue reasonable accommodation claims. Similarly, the federal rescheduling could lead to more claims related to medical marijuana under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

More Upcoming Developments

The rescheduling of medical marijuana is a major change in the federal approach to cannabis, but it isn’t going to be the last word.

The federal government’s rescheduling order was issued directly, bypassing the usual notice-and-comment period that allows for public engagement on proposed federal actions. It may be susceptible to legal challenges for that reason—or for the substantive rescheduling itself.

There also may be hurdles in Congress. Days after the DOJ/DEA announcement, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies approved a funding bill that would prohibit the federal government from taking any steps to reschedule marijuana.

Meanwhile, the DOJ and DEA are moving forward with a proposal to reschedule all marijuana. A hearing on that proposal is set to begin on June 29 and conclude by July 15. This quick timeline suggests the federal government wants to complete a broader rescheduling quickly—though it’s possible that it will be delayed by litigation.

A rescheduling of all marijuana would have wider implications for employers, and the next few months will be a crucial time to monitor developments on this issue. But the current rescheduling seems unlikely to require major overhauls of existing, compliant drug testing policies and procedures.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Daniel C. Deacon is a partner in the Washington, DC, office of Conn Maciel Carey, working in both the OSHA and labor and employment practices.

Andrea O. Chavez is a senior counsel in the Los Angeles office of Conn Maciel Carey.

Emily Toler Scott is a senior counsel in Conn Maciel Carey’s Washington, DC, office.

Interested in writing? Review our author guidelines, and submit pitches to Insights@bloombergindustry.com.