Quiet Outreach to Key Movement Leadership: Notifying Reform Voices of Incoming Schedule I Lawsuit

In the ongoing fight for a patient-first medical cannabis program aligned with science, law, and federal developments, transparency with allies matters. Today I quietly reached out to five respected voices in South Dakota’s cannabis reform and industry space to notify them of an impending lawsuit challenging South Dakota’s maintenance of marijuana in Schedule I under state criteria.¹

This announcement, from one of the nation’s top non-lawyer experts in CSA administration law and procedure, is offered to better prepare the broader movement for structural change that could benefit patients, taxpayers, and compliant operators alike.

27 States Will Automatically Reschedule Cannabis Once The Feds Reschedule

The Lawsuit in Brief

The action will seek a judicial declaration that South Dakota’s statutes now raise serious questions about continuing to classify marijuana as a Schedule I substance under state law, particularly in light of evolving scientific understanding, recent federal Schedule III developments, and the criteria embedded in SDCL Chapter 34-20B.²

Key arguments will rest on mismatches between current statutory definitions and evidence-based criteria for Schedule I placement.³

Senator John Thune: Federal Solution To State Medical Marijuana Laws In Hands Of State, Not Congress

South Dakota voters approved medical cannabis via Initiated Measure 26 in 2020, establishing a regulated program under SDCL Chapter 34-20G.⁴ Yet the state’s controlled substances framework in Chapter 34-20B continues to treat marijuana in a manner that conflicts with the medical program’s existence and patient protections.⁵

Recent legislative attempts to repeal or limit the program following federal rescheduling developments underscore the urgency.⁶

Why Notify Leadership Now?

Stakeholders with deep compliance, industry, government relations, and policy experience deserve advance notice.

Constructive input from those operating within or adjacent to the regulated market can strengthen the case for patients and program integrity.

Ties to Broader Accountability Efforts

This lawsuit complements the Formal Establishment Complaint filed today with the South Dakota Department of Health Medical Cannabis Program regarding licensed establishment agent conduct and program integrity under ARSD 44:90.⁷

Recent conflicts involving court process and public-record journalism also raise legitimate questions under operating procedure and management plan requirements as well as ethics questions about whether business interests are taking priority over prudent well articulated patient interests. ⁸

Patients and taxpayers deserve transparency from leadership overlapping advocacy and licensed operations.⁹

South Dakota’s Schedule I Marijuana Prohibition Heads to Court This Summer: Lawsuit Will Seek Declaration That State Law No Longer Satisfies Its Own Criteria

Moving Forward

The summer filing will seek clarity that advances patient access, fair markets, and alignment with law. I welcome substantive engagement from all sides of the reform community.

Public records and primary sources will continue to drive this work. The goal remains a stronger, more accountable medical cannabis program for South Dakota—not destruction for its own sake, but necessary reform where incentives have misaligned.

Stay tuned for updates. Comments and tips always appreciated via proper channels.

South Carolina Patients Could Get Medical Marijuana Access Under State Laws Triggered By Federal Rescheduling

Why South Dakota’s Own Statutes Now Make Schedule I Marijuana Unlawful to Maintain

---

Footnotes

SDCL § 34-20G-1 (Definitions) — https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/34-20G-1

² SDCL Chapter 34-20B (Controlled Substances) — https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/34-20B

³ SDCL § 34-20B-11 (Schedule I criteria) — https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/34-20B-11

⁴ Ballotpedia, South Dakota Initiated Measure 26, Medical Marijuana Initiative (approved Nov. 3, 2020) — https://ballotpedia.org/South_Dakota_Initiated_Measure_26,Medical_Marijuana_Initiative(2020)

⁵ SDCL § 34-20G-2 (Cardholder protections) — https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/34-20G-2

⁶ Forbes, “South Dakota Lawmakers Block Effort To End Medical Marijuana Program” (Feb. 12, 2026) — https://www.forbes.com/sites/ajherrington/2026/02/12/south-dakota-lawmakers-block-effort-to-end-medical-marijuana-program/

⁷ ARSD 44:90:03:05 (Operating procedures and management plan) — https://sdlegislature.gov/Rules/Administrative/44%3A90%3A03%3A05

⁸ ARSD 44:90:12:04 (Serious violations) — https://sdlegislature.gov/Rules/Administrative/44%3A90%3A12%3A04 :

“The department may, pursuant to SDCL chapter 1-26 and SDCL 34-20G-81, suspend for up to six months or revoke a registration certificate for any knowing violation of this article or SDCL chapter 34-20G that involves dishonesty, concealment, breach of patient privacy, diversion, or threat to public health or safety.

“Upon the discovery of serious and knowing violations that pose an ongoing threat to public health, safety, or welfare, the department may initiate emergency suspension proceedings pursuant to SDCL 1-26-29.”

⁹ ARSD 44:90:12:09 (Serious violation factors) — https://sdlegislature.gov/Rules/Administrative/44%3A90%3A12%3A09 :

“Determination of serious violation. When determining if a violation is a serious violation, the department shall consider:

    (1)  The nature and gravity of the violation;

    (2)  The willfulness and deliberateness of the violation;

    (3)  The actual or potential harm to patient health or safety or an establishment agent;

    (4)  Any prior violations by an establishment;

    (5)  The duration of the violation;

    (6)  The number and nature of current violations;

    (7)  The likelihood of reoccurrence of the violation; and

    (8)  Any other factor associated with the violation that adversely impacts patient health or safety.”

Additional sources:

¹⁰ ARSD 44:90:04:12 (Agent identification) — https://sdlegislature.gov/Rules/Administrative/44%3A90%3A04%3A12

¹¹ ARSD 44:90:12:01 (Complaint-driven inspections) — https://sdlegislature.gov/Rules/Administrative/44%3A90%3A12%3A01

¹² South Dakota Searchlight, “Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee Survives” (Mar. 5, 2026) — https://southdakotasearchlight.com/briefs/medical-marijuana-oversight-committee-survives-as-attempt-to-shut-it-down-fails/

¹³ South Dakota Searchlight, “Medical Marijuana Rift Widens” (Nov. 5, 2025) — https://southdakotasearchlight.com/2025/11/05/medical-marijuana-rift-widens-as-oversight-panel-confuses-and-upsets-industry-with-slate-of-motions/

¹⁴ WeedPress, “Formal Establishment Complaint Filed with SD DOH Medical Cannabis Program” (Apr. 29, 2026) — https://weedpress.org/2026/04/29/formal-establishment-complaint-filed-with-sd-doh-medical-cannabis-program-program-integrity-review-requested-re-licensed-establishment-agent-conduct/

¹⁵ SDCL § 22-42-1 (Marijuana definitions) — https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/22-42-1

¹⁶ SDCL Chapter 34-20G (Medical Cannabis) — https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/34-20G

¹⁷ SDCL § 34-20G-72 (Medical cannabis fund / program administration) — https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/34-20G-72

¹⁸ ARSD Article 44:90 (Medical Cannabis Program rules) — https://sdlegislature.gov/Rules/Administrative/44:90

¹⁹ SDCL § 34-20B-14 (Marijuana listed in Schedule I) — https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/34-20B-14

²⁰ WeedPress, “South Dakota Leaves Medical Marijuana Patients as Federal Criminals” (Jan. 17, 2026)