How the Reversal of Chevron Deference After Loper Bright Impacts Federal Cannabis Rescheduling

Federal cannabis reform didn’t just hit a political milestone, it ran headfirst into a seismic shift in administrative law. In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, dismantling a decades-old doctrine that had long shielded federal agencies from aggressive judicial review. That decision now looms over the federal government’s effort to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act, reshaping not only the rescheduling process itself but the legal risks surrounding it.

This shift in administrative law comes as political momentum around cannabis reform appears to be accelerating. On December 18, 2025, Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Justice to move quickly on cannabis rescheduling. While the order signals urgency, the legal standards imposed by Loper Bright may ultimately slow the process rather than speed it up.

What Changed After Loper Bright

Chevron deference was a judicial doctrine established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.. Under that framework, courts were required to defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that the agency administered, so long as the interpretation was permissible under the statute’s text. This two-step approach first asked whether Congress had spoken clearly on the issue and, if not, deferred to the agency’s interpretation. For roughly four decades, Chevron deference significantly empowered federal agencies in regulatory matters.

That framework was overturned on June 28, 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that courts must independently interpret statutes without deferring to agency views, shifting interpretive authority back to the judiciary under the Administrative Procedure Act.

As a result, courts reviewing federal agency actions no longer ask whether an agency’s interpretation is merely reasonable. Instead, judges must determine for themselves what Congress intended, even when statutory language is ambiguous and the subject matter is highly technical. This shift applies across regulatory fields involving science, medicine, and economics, and it fundamentally alters how agency rulemaking is evaluated.

For cannabis policy, this change is especially consequential. Agencies administering the Controlled Substances Act no longer receive automatic judicial deference when interpreting key statutory terms, meaning their conclusions must now withstand direct judicial scrutiny rather than benefit from institutional expertise alone.

How Cannabis Rescheduling Works

Federal cannabis scheduling is governed by the Controlled Substances Act and involves a coordinated process between health and law enforcement agencies. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) conducts a scientific and medical evaluation and makes a scheduling recommendation. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) then undertakes formal rulemaking to implement that recommendation.

In 2023, HHS concluded that cannabis meets the criteria for Schedule III. In reaching that conclusion, the agency relied on a two-part framework that focused on widespread clinical experience and credible scientific evidence supporting medical use. This approach marked a departure from the DEA’s historical five-part test, which more closely resembles FDA drug approval standards.

The DEA followed with a proposed rule in May 2024, setting the stage for rescheduling and triggering an unusually large public response. Prior to Loper Bright, courts reviewing the final rule would likely have deferred to the agencies’ interpretation of key statutory terms such as “currently accepted medical use” and “potential for abuse.” That assumption no longer holds.

Courts Now Hold the Interpretive Power

Under the post-Loper Bright framework, courts reviewing a cannabis rescheduling rule must interpret the Controlled Substances Act independently. Agencies must persuade judges that their interpretation of the statute is correct, not simply reasonable. This heightened scrutiny makes the rescheduling process far more vulnerable to legal challenge.

Judges may revisit the scientific record, assess whether the correct legal standards were applied, and determine for themselves how ambiguous statutory terms should be defined. Even if a court agrees with much of the agencies’ scientific analysis, disagreement over statutory interpretation alone could be enough to invalidate the rule.

Increased Litigation Risk and Potential Delays

The elimination of Chevron deference strengthens the hand of opponents to cannabis rescheduling. Legal challenges can now focus more aggressively on the interpretation of the statute itself, rather than just the adequacy of the administrative record. Courts may be more receptive to arguments that the agencies used the wrong legal test or departed from prior interpretations without sufficient justification.

The executive order calling for expedited action adds another layer of risk. While speed may be politically appealing, it can invite claims that the outcome was predetermined or that procedural safeguards were rushed. Those arguments are more likely to gain traction in a legal environment where courts are already inclined to scrutinize agency decision-making closely.

Why the HHS Medical Use Test Is Vulnerable

One of the most significant consequences of Loper Bright is the uncertainty surrounding HHS’s two-part test for determining accepted medical use. Without judicial deference, courts are free to reject that framework and substitute their own interpretation of the statute. A reviewing court could favor the DEA’s traditional five-part test or craft a new standard altogether.

If a court concludes that the wrong test was used, the rescheduling decision could be overturned even if the underlying science supports medical use. This risk underscores how much the outcome now depends on judicial interpretation rather than agency expertise.

What This Means for the Future of Cannabis Reform

The broader effect of Loper Bright is a shift in power from agencies to courts. While HHS’s scientific findings remain binding on the DEA and are still reviewed under the Administrative Procedure Act’s “arbitrary and capricious” standard, the ultimate interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act now rests with the judiciary. That shift introduces variability and makes outcomes less predictable across different courts.

As a result, administrative cannabis reform may slow, and attention may increasingly turn to Congress. Legislative action to amend the Controlled Substances Act or reschedule cannabis directly would bypass many of the interpretive disputes now playing out in the courts and provide greater legal certainty.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright has made federal cannabis rescheduling more legally complex and more susceptible to challenge. Even with executive support and agency alignment, the process is likely to involve prolonged litigation and an extended timeline. For the public, the key takeaway is that cannabis reform at the federal level remains very much in flux, with courts playing a decisive role in shaping its future.

Rachel O. Klubeck, Esq.

Partner | Gies Law Firm PLLC