The Justice Department just told a federal court to reject a bid to freeze the Trump administration’s marijuana rescheduling plan. In a sharp new filing, DOJ accused a drug testing group and a pharmaceutical company of chasing “pocketbook interests” to keep cannabis locked in Schedule I. The stakes for patients, employers and the industry could not be higher.
Why DOJ Is Fighting To Keep Rescheduling Alive
The government filed its response on Thursday. It asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia not to pause the cannabis reform while a larger legal battle plays out.
DOJ argued that the two groups trying to block the move simply do not have the legal standing to do so.
Those two groups are the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association, known as NDASA, and a cannabis-focused drug maker called MMJ International Holdings. They filed a separate motion asking the court to place a stay on rescheduling.
The Justice Department did not hold back in its reply. Its brief said the pair have “not demonstrated a likelihood of success” in the broader case.
“Petitioners come nowhere near satisfying the demanding standard for that extraordinary relief,” the government wrote.
The ‘Pocketbook Interests’ Argument Explained
At the heart of the DOJ filing is one blunt claim. The agency says the challengers care more about money than public safety.
The government said the groups “invoke pocketbook interests served by keeping all marijuana in schedule I.” That line cuts to the core of the dispute.
NDASA represents drug testing companies. It warned that its members would lose revenue if fewer employers test workers for marijuana. It also said members would face “higher costs” to figure out whether a positive result reflects legal, state-licensed medical use.
But DOJ said that is not the government’s fault. Here is how the agency broke down the three interests it says are really driving the lawsuit:
- Drug screeners who want to avoid lost business and rising costs.
- Employers who do not want to pay to update their drug testing rules.
- A drug maker, MMJ, that wants to block future market competition.
The brief pointed out that any lost testing revenue would come from clients choosing to stop testing, not from the rescheduling order itself. In DOJ’s words, that harm is “speculative,” not “predictable.”
Why The Court May Reject The Drug Maker’s Claim
MMJ International Holdings faces an even tougher problem, according to the filing. The company is not selling any approved cannabis medicine right now.
DOJ noted that MMJ has two Investigational New Drug applications pending with the Food and Drug Administration. Neither has finished the clinical trial process.
That means MMJ is “not a current market competitor,” the government said, so it cannot claim it is being harmed by competition.
The agency also argued that Congress never wrote the Controlled Substances Act to protect these interests. As the brief put it, lawmakers did not pass the law “to provide drug screeners with a permanent source of income for testing marijuana.” Nor did they write it to shield “market opportunities” for cannabinoid-based drugs.
“The intended beneficiaries of the CSA are thus the American public and scientists and medical practitioners seeking legitimate access to controlled substances for research and patient treatment.”
NDASA and MMJ had painted a darker picture in their own motion. They called cannabis a “dangerous drug that destroys lives” and warned of “devastating effects” from wider access.
DOJ pushed back with a simple fact. It noted that 40 states have already legalized the sale and use of marijuana for medical purposes.
How The Larger Rescheduling Battle Is Unfolding
This stay request is only one piece of a much bigger fight. The D.C. appeals court is weighing three separate lawsuits against moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III, and they have been combined into one case.
Here is a quick look at who is suing and why:
| Challenger | Main Claim |
|---|---|
| Smart Approaches to Marijuana and NDASA | Say they are “aggrieved” by the reform |
| Coalition of activists, doctors and MMJ | Oppose broader cannabis access |
| Attorneys general of Indiana and Nebraska | State-level legal challenge |
Louisiana originally joined the state suit but later pulled out. Meanwhile, two medical marijuana companies filed a motion this week to intervene on the government’s side.
The timing matters. The Drug Enforcement Administration this week opened an administrative hearing on the rescheduling proposal, where government witnesses are stressing the medical uses and relative safety of cannabis.
The reform itself began in April. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that state-licensed medical cannabis products and FDA-approved marijuana products would immediately move to Schedule III.
The prohibitionist push has heavy legal muscle behind it. The SAM and NDASA suit was signed by attorneys at Torridon Law, where former Attorney General William Barr is a partner. SAM hired Barr’s firm in January after President Trump signed an executive order telling officials to finish rescheduling quickly.
On Capitol Hill, the House Appropriations Committee voted to block officials from carrying out the reform. Still, bipartisan lawmakers say they do not expect that effort to succeed.
This case is about far more than legal paperwork. It touches millions of patients who rely on medical cannabis, the workers who fear losing jobs over a test, and a decades-long fight over how America treats a plant. As the court weighs every word of these filings, real lives hang in the balance. What do you think about DOJ’s stance? Share your view in the comments and tell us where you stand.
