ARTICLE
25 February 2026

Cannabis In 2026 – Part III: What Schedule III Could Mean For State-Legal Cannabis Operations: Real Upside, Persistent Friction

SM
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Contributor

Businesses turn to Sheppard to deliver sophisticated counsel to help clients move ahead. With more than 1,200 lawyers located in 16 offices worldwide, our client-centered approach is grounded in nearly a century of building enduring relationships on trust and collaboration. Our broad and diversified practices serve global clients—from startups to Fortune 500 companies—at every stage of the business cycle, including high-stakes litigation, complex transactions, sophisticated financings and regulatory issues. With leading edge technologies and innovation behind our team, we pride ourselves on being a strategic partner to our clients.
Federal cannabis policy is evolving quickly, and key details will turn on how the Department of Justice and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency finalize any Schedule III action...
United States Cannabis & Hemp
Sarah A. K. Blitz’s articles from Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP are most popular:
  • within Cannabis & Hemp topic(s)
  • in United States
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP are most popular:
  • within Cannabis & Hemp and Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring topic(s)

Federal cannabis policy is evolving quickly, and key details will turn on how the Department of Justice and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency finalize any Schedule III action, what accompanying guidance follows, and how litigation and Congress shape implementation. The discussion below reflects our current predictions based on today's federal and state regulatory schemes and their likely implications—and those predictions may change as new rules, enforcement priorities, or court decisions emerge.

1. State programs stay in charge—and the core regulatory architecture remains intact

Rescheduling would not replace state cannabis regulation with a federal licensing system for the existing commercial market. In practical terms, state autonomy would remain the organizing principle for day-to-day operations, including:

  • Licensing and market structure: who can participate, ownership and control restrictions, vertical integration limits, caps, and local control.
  • Product rules: permitted forms, potency limits, additives, packaging, labeling, testing standards, and recall frameworks.
  • Compliance and enforcement: inspections, track-and-trace participation, waste procedures, security, advertising limits, and administrative penalties.
  • Equity and community reinvestment: social equity eligibility, priority licensing, labor peace requirements (where applicable), and local benefit agreements.

Rescheduling also would not create a unified federal standard for state operators to follow. As a result, multi-state operators should still expect state-by-state fragmentation in product requirements, labeling, and operational controls—and continued complexity for compliance, supply chains, and branding.

2. Federal illegality continues (just under a different schedule)

Even at Schedule III, non–Food & Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cannabis activity remains federally unlawful. The federal/state tension persists: operators may be fully compliant under state law and still operate outside a federally sanctioned commercial framework. Rescheduling can reduce stigma and shift risk perceptions, but it does not convert dispensaries into federally recognized distribution channels.

3. The biggest operational impact: likely end of 280E

For most operators, the most immediate and financially significant consequence of Schedule III is that IRC § 280E should no longer apply, allowing deduction of ordinary business expenses (e.g., payroll, rent, marketing, professional fees). That can materially change cash flow, reinvestment capacity, pricing strategy, and valuation/M&A underwriting. A secondary effect to watch: states may revisit cannabis tax policy if federal burdens ease.

4. Interstate commerce still does not open

Rescheduling alone does not authorize interstate commerce for state-licensed products. Operators should not assume new lawful pathways for cross-border distribution, shared production, or unified product standards without additional federal action.

5. Banking may improve incrementally, but not "solve"

Schedule III could increase comfort for some banks, insurers, and vendors. But core constraints remain tied to Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) compliance and the continued federal-law conflict. Without further legislative change, improvements are likely to be partial and uneven across institutions and markets.

6. Expect more compliance scrutiny—especially documentation and claims

A Schedule III environment may bring more federal attention, particularly around labeling, consumer protection, and health/wellness claims (including online marketing). Operators should expect increased emphasis on documented controls, audit readiness, and defensible compliance narratives for counterparties (banks, investors, landlords, acquirers).

7. Medical and research: meaningful signals, limited immediate commercial change

Schedule III reflects a federal acknowledgment of accepted medical use, which may reduce stigma and support more research. But state dispensaries do not become FDA-approved pharmacies, and products do not become federally prescribable absent FDA approval.

Planning takeaways: Schedule III could materially improve operator economics via 280E relief and strengthen the broader medical/research narrative, but it will not eliminate federal-law friction, open interstate commerce, or instantly normalize banking. The Sheppard Mullin Cannabis Industry Team can help operators and ancillary businesses evaluate post-280E scenarios, advise on compliance and contracting impacts, support transactions and diligence under shifting risk assumptions, and build implementation plans as rulemaking and litigation develop.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More