Update: publicly available court records show a 605 Cannabis LLC COO has had a default judgment for failure to pay a $7500 loan entered by Hanson County Court November 2025, as well as a domestic assault charge for husband on wife assault and an arrest and jailing in the Alexandria South Dakota County jail for that domestic assault as well as an order to get evaluated for alcohol abuse. Court docs are linked at end of article.
Federal rescheduling of marijuana has reached a historic inflection point for South Dakota patients. On April 23, 2026, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and the Drug Enforcement Administration issued a final order placing FDA-approved products containing marijuana, and marijuana products subject to a qualifying state-issued medical marijuana license, into Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act.¹ This may create important new pathways for tax relief under IRS § 280E, research expansion, DEA registration, and improved compliance conditions for state medical operators.² An expedited administrative hearing is scheduled to begin June 29, 2026, to consider broader rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III.³
In December 2025, New Approach South Dakota Executive Director Melissa Mentele predicted in a public interview that the process would take “a year or more” and involve extensive formal rulemaking with no immediate change.⁴ She stated: “What he signed in was just basically telling the DOJ and the DEA that it’s time to reclassify. What’s next is a whole bunch of undoing what his words were and laying the strings out and figuring out exactly how to do that,” and that “People will still be arrested on a Schedule 1 substance if they don’t have a South Dakota medical marijuana card.”⁵
In contrast, @admindotlaw — an appellate lawyer with deep expertise in federal administrative procedure and controlled substances law — anticipated that key aspects of rescheduling could move faster than prolonged traditional rulemaking through executive and agency action grounded in the Controlled Substances Act’s flexibility under 21 U.S.C. § 811.⁶ That analysis now appears especially relevant as rapid Schedule III relief has materialized for qualifying state medical marijuana programs.
South Dakota’s controlled substances scheduling process is legislative in nature. Under SDCL Chapter 34-20B, the Department of Health evaluates substances and makes recommendations to the Legislature for addition, deletion, or rescheduling pursuant to SDCL § 34-20B-27.⁷ This framework does not provide for automatic alignment with federal changes; instead, the Department has discretion regarding the timing of any review before recommending legislative action. This writer’s formal Petition for Declaratory Ruling and Mandatory Scheduling Review of Cannabis, filed under SDCL §§ 1-26-13, 1-26-15, 34-20B-11, and 34-20B-27, was accepted into the administrative record by the Department, which confirmed receipt and placed the issue of continued Schedule I classification squarely before state officials.⁸ The petition argues that South Dakota’s own medical cannabis program, SDCL Chapter 34-20G, makes continued Schedule I treatment legally vulnerable under state scheduling criteria and creates a duty to review whether alignment is now required.
South Dakota patients and the public deserve full federal alignment. Continued patchwork enforcement leaves cardholders exposed to federal “unlawful user” status under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits firearm possession by those using any controlled substance. Rescheduling may mitigate that burden for qualifying state-compliant medical patients, though the full consequences will depend on federal implementation and future litigation.⁹ Full compliance should prioritize patient safety, affordability, competition, and lawful access over any single operator’s market insulation. Notably, in Michigan, attorney Neil Rockind secured dismissals of Schedule I marijuana charges by successfully arguing that the state’s medical marijuana law rendered marijuana’s Schedule I classification inconsistent with state policy in certain prosecutions.¹⁰
Public records and public-index summaries may raise transparency questions involving Melissa Mentele, executive and co-founder of 605 Cannabis, LLC. One category involves repeated Temporary Protective Order filings by Mentele against this writer arising from WeedPress reporting and policy commentary. Three such TPOs have been denied after hearings, with no sustained findings of threat or violence under South Dakota’s TPO statutes, despite contrary characterizations made publicly.¹¹ Another category stems from 605 Cannabis’s 2023 lawsuit against the South Dakota Department of Health over inspections, rules application, and alleged overreach, which reportedly sought more than $1 million in damages and forms part of the company’s public litigation history.¹² Public index summaries and pending clerk-record requests further indicate additional Hanson County matters may involve Mentele personally, including debt-collection and property/foreclosure-style proceedings, alongside the 2023 criminal case State of South Dakota v. Brent J. Mentele, charged with domestic assault for assaulting Melissa Mentele, his wife.¹³ WeedPress has requested primary records from the Hanson County Clerk of Courts and will update or correct any characterization once docket sheets, complaints, answers, judgments, service returns, or disposition records are received.
These matters coincide with Mentele’s central role in drafting and promoting South Dakota’s medical cannabis framework via New Approach South Dakota and Initiated Measure 26, now codified at SDCL Chapter 34-20G.¹⁴ That law requires medical cannabis establishment applications to include proof that “[a]t least one principal officer” is a South Dakota resident.¹⁵ Local ordinances, including those in Sioux Falls, further reflect local control over medical cannabis establishment registration and limits.¹⁶
Post-rescheduling, such residency and operational preferences may face renewed Dormant Commerce Clause scrutiny. The Dormant Commerce Clause generally prohibits states from enacting protectionist measures that discriminate against out-of-state economic actors or unduly burden interstate commerce.¹⁷ A split has emerged in cannabis litigation. The Ninth Circuit has held that the Dormant Commerce Clause does not bar certain cannabis residency rules because marijuana remains federally illegal in some respects.¹⁸ However, the First and Second Circuits, along with multiple district courts, have treated similar in-state preferences as constitutionally suspect once a state authorizes a commercial cannabis market.¹⁹
South Dakota’s structure — shaped in part by Mentele and New Approach South Dakota — may now require serious review. Residency preferences and vertically integrated market structures can protect local operators, but they can also limit competition, preserve high prices, and restrict patient access. Mentele has advocated a more measured approach rather than rapid full federal compliance.²⁰ That position may be framed as cautious, but patients are entitled to ask whether caution primarily serves public health or may also have the effect of protecting incumbents from competition.. The U.S. Supreme Court has long affirmed federal supremacy over controlled substances notwithstanding state medical programs, underscoring the importance of timely state alignment.²¹
As a 20-year nonviolent cannabis advocate and blogger with a resolved 2021–2022 federal matter involving protected speech, I have reported on these policy tensions as matters of public concern. Mentele’s public social media responses and the pattern of denied TPOs have not yet substantively answered policy questions raised by rescheduling, market structure, residency rules, or patient access.²²
Reform leaders who helped write the laws and now operate within them owe patients and the public rigorous transparency — especially when invoking civil process against critics. Publicly available court records, company litigation, denied TPO filings, and state cannabis policy choices invite legitimate questions about whether personal, business, and patient interests remain aligned under the new federal framework.²³
605 Cannabis and Mentele deserve credit for helping build South Dakota’s medical cannabis program. But public credit does not create immunity from public scrutiny. Sustained disagreements over the speed of federal compliance, Dormant Commerce Clause vulnerabilities, in-state market preferences, and enforcement equity demand open debate — not process-based responses.
Patients deserve programs that deliver safety, affordability, and full federal-law harmony. With Schedule III relief now in effect and broader rescheduling hearings imminent, South Dakota should lead on alignment rather than insulation. WeedPress will continue factual reporting grounded in public records, statutes, court outcomes, and constitutional precedent. Mentele, 605 Cannabis, and state officials are invited to respond substantively on policy.
This is opinion and analysis grounded in public records, statutes, and court outcomes. It is not legal advice. Primary sources should be verified through the South Dakota Unified Judicial System, SDCL, Federal Register, DOJ/DEA records, and county clerk files. Clerk confirmation on additional records will be published promptly and accurately.
This article discusses matters of public concern regarding cannabis policy implementation and leadership accountability. All references to court filings are based on public records and are published in good faith.
Footnotes
¹ Justice Dep’t, Justice Department Places FDA-Approved Marijuana Products and Products Containing Marijuana Subject to a Qualifying State-issued License in Schedule III (Apr. 23, 2026), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-places-fda-approved-marijuana-products-and-products-containing-marijuana.
² Id.; see also 21 U.S.C. § 812; 26 U.S.C. § 280E.
³ Justice Dep’t, supra note 1; see also Reuters, US to Loosen Marijuana Rules in Major Shift for $47 Billion Industry (Apr. 23, 2026).
⁴ Beth Warden, Marijuana Reclassification: What It Means for South Dakotans, Dakota News Now (Dec. 22, 2025), https://www.dakotanewsnow.com/2025/12/23/marijuana-reclassification-what-it-means-south-dakotans/.
⁵ Id.
⁶ See public statements and analysis by @admindotlaw on federal administrative procedure under the CSA, including discussions of 21 U.S.C. § 811 expedited pathways.
⁷ SDCL § 34-20B-27.
⁸ Jason Karimi, South Dakota’s Schedule I Problem Is Now in the Administrative Record, WeedPress (Feb. 23, 2026), https://weedpress.org/2026/02/23/south-dakotas-schedule-i-problem-is-now-in-the-administrative-record/; Jason Karimi, DOH Confirms Receipt: South Dakota’s Schedule I Review Petition Is Officially in the Record, WeedPress (Mar. 5, 2026), https://weedpress.org/2026/03/05/doh-confirms-receipt-south-dakotas-schedule-i-review-petition-is-officially-in-the-record/.
⁹ 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3); see also recent litigation and briefing addressing firearm restrictions for marijuana users and the potential effect of rescheduling.
¹⁰ See, e.g., Neil Rockind representations in People v. Sulaka and related Michigan cases where Schedule I charges were dismissed post-medical marijuana legalization on grounds of inconsistency with state law.
¹¹ SDCL §§ 25-10-1 et seq.; South Dakota Unified Judicial System public dockets and hearing outcomes.
¹² 605 Cannabis Cultivation, LLC et al. v. South Dakota Dep’t of Health, Hughes County Civil Case; see also public reporting on 605 Cannabis’s 2023 lawsuit against the South Dakota Department of Health.
¹³ See public records request to Hanson County Clerk of Courts dated April 26, 2026, identifying: State of South Dakota v. Brent J. Mentele, 30CRI23-000051 (Hanson County Circuit Court) — charged with Domestic Abuse – Simple Assault (M1), described as “Attempt to put another in fear of bodily harm” / “Attempt to cause bodily injury” with the victim being wife Melissa Mentele (case originated 2023; public record visible as of April 14, 2026; no disposition shown in available summaries); along with the debt/foreclosure civil cases Deborah E. Hornidge & John Hornidge v. Melissa Mentele, Brent Mentele, et al., 30CIV25-000032/000033 and Midland Credit Management, Inc. v. Melissa Mentele, 30CIV25-000034/000035 (and related LVNV cases).
¹⁴ S.D. Initiated Measure No. 26 (2020), codified at SDCL ch. 34-20G.
¹⁵ SDCL § 34-20G-55.
¹⁶ Sioux Falls, S.D., Municipal Code provisions on medical cannabis establishment registration and local limits.
¹⁷ U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3; Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005).
¹⁸ Peridot Tree WA, Inc. v. Washington State Liquor & Cannabis Control Bd., 162 F.4th 1179 (9th Cir. 2026).
¹⁹ Northeast Patients Group v. United Cannabis Patients & Caregivers of Maine, 45 F.4th 542 (1st Cir. 2022); Variscite NY Four LLC v. New York State Cannabis Control Bd., 152 F.4th 47 (2d Cir. 2025).
²⁰ Warden, supra note 4.
²¹ Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).
²² See screenshots of public Facebook posts by Mentele and public group comments.
²³ SDCL ch. 34-20G; SDCL ch. 34-20B; public records and court-index materials discussed supra.
Update: Hanson County Clerk emailed me the following public records today and as promised I am sharing them here for the public interest. Interesting that the 605 Cannabis COO has recently defaulted on a $7500 personal loan in 2025. That tracks with what the COO told me on the phone two years ago, saying there were financial troubles, and she was foregoing $150,000 a year in salary to help the company float through. I didn’t expect to see her husband assaulted her though. I wouldn’t have likely found out this public information had she not accused me in her fourth TPO (denied by judge) of wishing harm to her. I was like, something is wrong here, I need to look deeper…this explains a lot, and explains why her defamatory claims made about me are so ridiculous.
So, while being accused of threatening violence, the first charge here shows the COO’s husband beating his COO wife and being charged with two misdemeanors for it while being booked into the Alexandria jail. I’m not the threat here to this battered wife’s physical safety and feel she is claiming that about me so somebody comes and assaults ME, so I’ve filed a police report to document she is trying to stir the public up against me, making incredible, never before heard allegations, with the intent of ruining my life, and grasping desperately for evidence, instead defaming me.
The 605 Cannabis COO has already jailed me on false pretenses and those charges were dismissed, but Melissa Mentele has continued to lie about WeedPress very hard to get the following public information from being reported on when I started asking questions about 605 Cannabis financial issues reported by other public advocates in South Dakota to WeedPress, and reported to WeedPress by a 605 Cannabis COO directly during a 90 minute phone call witnessed by my fiance who sat next to me while I talked on speaker phone for 90 minutes with the 605 Cannabis COO. 605’s COO has now been spending massive amounts of time in court to convince people I’m a truly super big bad guy, which everyone who knows me thinks is so absurd it’s amusing…and the only arguments advanced have been I’m blogging and shouldn’t be allowed to. Also, I’m somehow violent, and not her husband? Talk about blaming me for your own personal failures. I’m just here to report on cannabis policy, policy makers, and offer ideas to help people. In this state, I do have an idea that will help everyone: but I’ll let others catch up before presenting. I have to defend my integrity against a liar trying to destroy my life, which isn’t possible, because I have a reputation as being a good person and this person accusing me has domestic and financial difficulties she is trying to take out on me and beat up on me for some reason, when all I ever did to begin with was politely ask questions about South Dakota marijuana advocacy issues like protecting gun rights for users via federal exemption. I actually think I was attacked specifically for federal exemption requests, as that was what was told to me in writing from this attacker, but court will determine the motive behind the ongoing campaign to make WeedPress look like a threat to the community. (Hint: I’ve never been charged with any violence of any kind not even alleged of it. I’m a pacifist.)
Also, a cease and desist letter to stop defaming me and harassing me has been sent to appropriate legal counsel. In the latest TPO filing, 605 Cannabis accuses me of wishing their COO to commit suicide. I’ve never said that about anyone and never would. So, defamation per se continues unabated against WeedPress for reporting truthful public interest stories and analysis. I guess that’s the way it’s going to be until courts rule, for the fourth time in the past four months, in favor of WeedPress against 605 Cannabis, who keeps requesting the courts forbid a blog from blogging in America. Weird.
WeedPress: The Paper Trail 
Leave a comment