Why November 12 and December 11 mean different things for hemp THC, and what happens when products lose their federal hemp exemption.
Federal hemp law changes in two steps over the next seven weeks.
On November 12, 2026, hemp-derived products that contain cannabinoids a cannabis plant is “not capable of” producing lose their status as hemp. On December 11, 2026, the rest of Congress’s rewrite takes hold: a total-THC test, an exclusion for plant cannabinoids “synthesized or manufactured outside the plant,” and a cap of 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container for finished products.1 Delta-8 THC converted from hemp-derived CBD, the product most people mean when they say “hemp THC,” falls in the December group, not the November one.2 That is the first conclusion of this article, and it is a question of statutory timing: converted delta-8 loses its federal hemp exemption on December 11, 2026.
The second question is what the product becomes once it leaves the hemp definition, and that question is not settled. The Controlled Substances Act has two Schedule I entries that could apply: “marijuana” and a separate entry for “tetrahydrocannabinols.” Congress did not say which one governs. DEA’s recent statements point to one, earlier appellate reasoning can be read to point to the other, and no court has ruled under the amended definition. What can be said now is narrower. For a product sold outside an FDA approval or a state medical marijuana license, both answers lead to Schedule I, and neither leads to Schedule III. The April 28, 2026 federal order moved only marijuana, marijuana extract, and naturally derived delta-9 THC that are in an FDA-approved product or “subject to a state medical marijuana license,” and it states that “synthetic THC remains in schedule I.”3 A delta-8 gummy on a convenience-store shelf is neither FDA-approved nor state-licensed medical marijuana.
The Statute: Section 781, Then Section 2019
What Congress enacted in November 2025
The hemp rewrite is section 781 of Division B of Public Law 119-37, the full-year FY2026 Agriculture appropriations act that Congress attached to the continuing resolution signed on November 12, 2025. Section 781 amends 7 U.S.C. § 1639o “[e]ffective 365 days after the enactment of this Act,” which is November 12, 2026.4
The new definition replaces the 2018 delta-9 test with “a total tetrahydrocannabinols concentration (including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”5 It then excludes from “hemp”:
viable seeds from a plant that exceeds 0.3 percent total THC;
intermediate hemp-derived cannabinoid products containing (I) “cannabinoids that are not capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant,” (II) cannabinoids that “are capable of being naturally produced” but “were synthesized or manufactured outside the plant,” or (III) more than 0.3 percent combined total THC and other cannabinoids with similar effects;
intermediate products marketed or sold as a final product or directly to consumers; and
final hemp-derived cannabinoid products containing cannabinoids in category (I) or (II), or “greater than 0.4 milligrams combined total per container” of total THC and similar-effect cannabinoids.6
A “container” is “the innermost wrapping, packaging, or vessel in direct contact with” the final product.7 Section 781 also told FDA to publish, within 90 days, lists of cannabinoids capable of being naturally produced by the plant, naturally occurring THC-class cannabinoids, and other cannabinoids with similar effects, plus more detail on “container.”8
What Congress changed in September 2026
Public Law 119-103, the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027, signed September 2, 2026, did not amend section 781. Section 2019 of that Act instead provides: “Until December 11, 2026, the amendments made by section 781 . . . shall only apply with respect to products described in paragraphs (1)(C)(ii)(I) and (1)(C)(iv)(I).”9Those two subclauses are the “not capable of being naturally produced” exclusions for intermediate and final products. Every other part of the new definition waits until December 11, including the total-THC test, the “synthesized or manufactured outside the plant” exclusion, the 0.3 percent limit on intermediate products, and the 0.4-milligram container cap. December 11 is also the date the same Act’s stopgap funding expires.10
The Congressional Research Service reads section 2019 the same way: the “not capable of being naturally produced” exclusion takes effect November 12, and “[t]he other portions of the new hemp definition do not take effect until December 11, 2026.”11 Some local coverage has told readers that “most delta-8” loses federal hemp status on November 12.12 The enacted text does not support that.
Why converted delta-8 is a December product
CRS explains that “[d]elta-8 THC and delta-10 THC occur in the cannabis plant in small amounts and can also be synthesized from other cannabinoids,” while THC-O “does not occur naturally in the cannabis plant.”13 Delta-8 made from CBD is therefore a cannabinoid “capable of being naturally produced” that was “synthesized or manufactured outside the plant,” which is subclause (II). Subclause (II) starts December 11.
THC-O is the clearest November example. DEA concluded in 2023 that delta-8-THCO and delta-9-THCO “do not occur naturally in the cannabis plant and can only be obtained synthetically.”14 DEA has also described HHC as “a synthetic substance that is structurally related to tetrahydrocannabinols.”15 Whether a given cannabinoid is “not capable of being naturally produced,” however, is exactly what FDA’s statutory list was supposed to settle. That list was due in February. CRS reported that “as of September 28, 2026,” it had not been published. As of October 25, 2026, a Federal Register search shows no FDA list or HHS determination.16
One more textual point, offered as the author’s reading: the exclusions apply to products “containing” the listed cannabinoids.17 The statute measures the product, not the headline ingredient. A delta-8 gummy that also contains THC-O is a November product, not a December one.
Where Former Hemp Lands Under the CSA
Two doors, both Schedule I
The Controlled Substances Act reaches cannabis through two separate Schedule I entries. “Marijuana” means all parts of the plant and “every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant,” but it does not include “hemp, as defined in section 1639o of title 7.”18Separately, Schedule I lists “[t]etrahydrocannabinols, except for tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp (as defined under section 1639o of title 7).”19 DEA’s regulation defines that entry to include THC “naturally contained in” the plant and also “synthetic equivalents” and “synthetic substances, derivatives, and their isomers,” minus anything within the hemp definition.20
Section 781 amends neither entry. It works by cross-reference: shrink the hemp definition, and both carve-outs shrink with it. CRS calls this “an exception to the exceptions,” under which covered products “will be subject to CSA regulation as marijuana or THC.”21 Another CRS product says simply that excluded products “would instead be subject to regulation under the CSA as marijuana.”22Which door applies has not been decided.
Door one: marijuana. Converted delta-8 starts as hemp. Read literally, a cannabinoid made from hemp CBD is a “compound, manufacture, . . . derivative, . . . or preparation” of the plant. On that reading, once it is no longer hemp, it is marijuana.
Door two: tetrahydrocannabinols. DEA’s stated position points here. In its May 2026 HHC rule, DEA wrote that “tetrahydrocannabinols produced through chemical conversion, even when hemp derived are considered synthetically produced for purposes of the CSA.”23 In the April 2026 rescheduling order, DOJ said the order “does not apply to synthetically derived THC, which is outside the CSA’s definition of marijuana,” and that “synthetic THC remains in schedule I.”24 Those statements build on DEA’s 2020 interim final rule: “All synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols remain schedule I controlled substances.”25
What the courts said about the old definition.
Two federal appeals courts rejected DEA’s manufacturing-method distinction under the 2018 definition. The Ninth Circuit held that § 1639o “is unambiguous and precludes a distinction based on manufacturing method.” It read DEA’s own 2020 language to suggest that “the source of the product—not the method of manufacture—is the dispositive factor.”26 It also noted a 2021 DEA letter describing “synthetic” delta-8 as delta-8 produced “from non-cannabis materials.”27 The Fourth Circuit applied the same reasoning to THC-O in 2024 and found that DEA’s contrary interpretation lacked the “power to persuade.”28
The author’s reading.
Section 781 overrides the hemp half of those holdings. Congress has now written a manufacturing-method line into the definition itself: a plant cannabinoid “synthesized or manufactured outside the plant” is not hemp, whatever its delta-9 content.29 After December 11, AK Futures cannot keep converted delta-8 inside the hemp definition. The cases still matter for the second question, though. Their view that “synthetic” turns on source rather than process supports treating hemp-sourced, converted delta-8 as a plant “derivative,” which makes it marijuana. DEA’s 2026 statements support treating it as synthetic THC. No court has decided that question under the amended definition.
Why the door matters
For a retail hemp product, both doors lead to Schedule I. The classification still matters in three ways.
Penalties. Federal trafficking penalties single out marijuana. For a first offense without death or serious bodily injury, distribution of less than 50 kilograms of marijuana carries a statutory maximum of 5 years under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D). Schedule I and II substances not covered by a more specific quantity provision default to a 20-year maximum under § 841(b)(1)(C). For comparison, a Schedule III substance carries a 10-year maximum under § 841(b)(1)(E)(i). Under § 841(b)(4), distributing “a small amount of marihuana for no remuneration” is treated as simple possession under § 844.30 If DEA’s “synthetic THC” view controls, those marijuana-specific provisions would not apply. That is a reading of the penalty structure, not a prediction about charging decisions.
The Schedule III carve-out. The April order’s Schedule III entries cover (g)(2) “[m]arijuana, as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802(16),” (g)(3) marijuana extract, and (g)(4) “[n]aturally derived delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinols,” in each case only in an FDA-approved product or subject to a state medical marijuana license. The (g)(4) entry excludes anything within the hemp definition.31 Converted delta-8 is not delta-9, and DEA does not consider it naturally derived. So if it is “synthetic THC,” it stays in Schedule I even inside a licensed medical program. If it is marijuana, the carve-out reaches it only when it is subject to a state medical license. Either way, the smoke-shop shelf stays in Schedule I.
The medical-marijuana appropriations rider. CRS notes that, “[t]o the extent products falling outside the definition of hemp will now be legally classified as marijuana,” the long-running rider barring DOJ interference with state medical-marijuana programs “would apply to those products to the extent they are used for medical purposes in compliance with state law.”32 That protection depends on door one and on state-law medical compliance. A patient’s registry card does not by itself satisfy either condition, and an over-the-counter hemp purchase is not a transaction within a state medical program.
What Happens on the Shelf
Products containing cannabinoids that the plant cannot naturally produce stop being hemp. THC-O is the category DEA has already called non-natural.33 Neither section 781 nor section 2019 contains a sell-through, grandfather, or inventory-disposal provision. The CSA makes unauthorized possession and distribution of a controlled substance unlawful.34 Inventory on hand on November 12 is possession on November 12. Until FDA publishes its list, retailers should check certificates of analysis for every cannabinoid in a product, not just the one on the front label. For products not covered by the November exclusions, the existing federal hemp definition generally continues to govern through December 10, subject to other applicable federal and state restrictions.
Converted delta-8 leaves the hemp definition, along with other plant cannabinoids manufactured outside the plant. THCA flower over 0.3 percent total THC and every final product over 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container leave with it. The cap is not limited to converted products. A beverage made only with naturally occurring hemp delta-9 fails if the can holds more than 0.4 milligrams. Iowa’s state-legal 10-milligram container is 25 times the federal limit, a collision WeedPress flagged in January.35
Medical cardholders versus hemp consumers
The April order turns on the product and the licensed chain it moves through, not on the person who buys it. Schedule III status attaches to marijuana “subject to a state medical marijuana license.” The order defines that term as a license “issued by a state entity . . . authorizing the licensee to manufacture, distribute, and/or dispense marijuana or products that contain marijuana for medical purposes.”36 The license that matters is the one held by the cultivator, manufacturer, or dispensary. A patient’s registry card is not that license. It does not turn a product a patient buys into a Schedule III substance, and it does not authorize every product sold to a registered patient. A product sold through a licensed dispensary can fall within the Schedule III category because of the licensed chain behind it, not because of the buyer’s card. A delta-8 product the same cardholder buys at a gas station after December 11 falls outside that category, as would any unlicensed product sold to a registered patient. Even inside the licensed chain, the THC entry reaches only “[n]aturally derived delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinols . . . in marijuana subject to a state medical marijuana license.” So a license does not reach converted delta-8 if DEA’s synthetic-THC view holds. Schedule III placement also does not, by itself, authorize a patient’s possession. Federal law still makes possession unlawful unless the substance was obtained from a practitioner, directly or by a valid prescription or order, or “as otherwise authorized” by the CSA.37 WeedPress has covered that patient-side gap separately.
Enforcement priorities
A change in legal status is not an enforcement plan. CRS observed that “it remains unclear if and how federal law enforcement will enforce the new prohibitions” and that FDA and DEA “may lack the resources to broadly enforce” them.38 CRS also notes that DOJ “generally has not prioritized enforcement against small-scale violations.”39 In May 2026, Marijuana Moment reported that a House Appropriations Committee report accompanying the FY2027 Commerce-Justice-Science bill would direct DEA, with FDA, to act against products that “fail to meet the statutory definition” in section 781.40 Committee-report language is direction, not law. In this region, the enforcement record so far has been state-led. South Dakota’s Attorney General joined a coalition of 35 attorneys general in August urging Congress to keep the new definition in effect.41
South Dakota
South Dakota’s hemp definition does not track the federal change automatically. It is a standalone text, not a cross-reference to 7 U.S.C. § 1639o. It requires “a total delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than three-tenths of one percent.” “Total delta-9” is defined to sum delta-9 THC and THCA.42 That standard counts THCA, as the new federal test does. It does not count delta-8 or other isomers, and it has no per-container cap. The 2026 rewrite of § 38-35-1, effective January 1, 2027, keeps the same total-delta-9 standard.43
South Dakota already targeted converted cannabinoids.Through December 31, 2026, state law defines a “chemically derived cannabinoid” as a substance created by a chemical reaction that changes the molecular structure of a cannabis-derived substance. It excludes from “industrial hemp product” any product containing chemically derived cannabinoids, and it lists delta-8, delta-10, THC-O, HHC, and THCP by name. The version effective January 1, 2027, keeps the same five named cannabinoids but phrases the exclusion as “any of the following chemically derived cannabinoids,” and it drops the separate definition of “chemically derived cannabinoid.”44 Whether that change affects other statutes that use the term is a 2027 question. Since 2024, SDCL § 34-20B-118 has made it a Class 2 misdemeanor to chemically convert hemp or CBD into any THC isomer, or to sell hemp products containing chemically derived cannabinoids.45 A separate statute, amended in 2026, criminalizes sale to and possession by people under 21 of products containing delta-8, THCA, THC-O, or HHC.46 A broader 2026 ban on hemp-derived intoxicants, SB 61, failed when a motion to place it on the Senate calendar did not pass on January 22.47
State scheduling. SDCL § 34-20B-14(20) lists tetrahydrocannabinol in Schedule I “except that which occurs in industrial hemp as defined in § 38-35-1.” The state’s marijuana definition likewise excludes “[i]ndustrial hemp, as defined in § 38-35-1.”48 In the author’s reading, the Legislature has treated converted hemp cannabinoids as a misdemeanor and age-restriction problem rather than a Schedule I problem. The under-21 statute assumes that adult-market delta-8 products exist. Whether a prosecutor could instead charge converted delta-8 as Schedule I THC under § 34-20B-14(20) is a question this article does not resolve.
What changes in South Dakota on December 11.December 11 does not itself amend South Dakota law. The state already prohibits selling hemp products containing chemically derived cannabinoids under SDCL § 34-20B-118. The federal change adds a separate controlled-substance consequence. Federally, converted delta-8 becomes a Schedule I substance. The sharper divergence is naturally derived THC. A hemp product that meets South Dakota’s total-delta-9 limit and contains no chemically derived cannabinoids can remain lawful under state law while exceeding the federal 0.4-milligram cap. In that case, state and federal law will describe the same gummy differently. Licensed medical cannabis under chapter 34-20G sits in a different federal category altogether. WeedPress has covered the Attorney General’s Schedule III opinion and the Department of Health question it leaves open.49
Iowa
Iowa defines “hemp” by reference to USDA’s regulation, 7 C.F.R. § 990.1, rather than the statute. As of October 25, 2026, that regulation still uses a “total delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol” test.50 Iowa caps consumable hemp products at the lesser of 0.3 percent or “[f]our milligrams per serving and ten milligrams per container.”51 It prohibits registered businesses from selling “synthetic consumable hemp product[s],” a serious misdemeanor. An HHS rule defines that category to include delta-8, delta-10, HHC, THC-P, and THC-O.52 A compliant product “is not a controlled substance under chapter 124 or 453B,” and Iowa’s Schedule I excludes hemp products within the statutory limit.53
The 2026 session produced a rewrite, House Study Bill 753, that would have excluded “synthetic” and “semisynthetic” cannabinoids and reorganized chapter 204. Its last recorded action is a February 19, 2026 committee vote.54 As a result, two things follow on December 11. Converted delta-8, already barred under Iowa law, becomes federally Schedule I. Iowa-compliant 4- and 10-milligram products, still lawful and still not controlled substances under Iowa law, stop being federal hemp. Iowa’s separate proposal on state Schedule III placement for medical products is a different track.55
Nebraska
Nebraska’s Hemp Farming Act still uses the 2018 delta-9 test and provides that hemp “shall not be considered a controlled substance under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act.” The state’s marijuana definition excludes hemp.56 LB 316, which would have tightened that framework, was indefinitely postponed on April 17, 2026.57Enforcement has run through the Attorney General’s consumer-protection campaign instead. By September 2025, the office had sent cease-and-desist letters to companies owning about 300 stores and filed 16 lawsuits under the Consumer Protection Act and Pure Food Act. It told stores that “several cannabinoids being sold are purely synthetic Schedule I substances.”58 Nebraska’s statutory definition will not move with the federal one; federal law will simply apply on top of it.
What This Does Not Decide
Which cannabinoids are “not capable of being naturally produced.” As of October 25, 2026, FDA’s list, its guidance on “container,” and any HHS determination of “similar effects” cannabinoids have not been published. Without them, the November category has no official membership list.
Marijuana or THC.
No court has decided whether former hemp products are “marijuana” or Schedule I “tetrahydrocannabinols” under the amended definition. AK Futures and Anderson interpreted the 2018 text, which Congress has now changed.
Whether Congress moves the date again.
The December 11 hemp date and the December 11 funding deadline coincide. CRS reports that the House-passed FY2027 Agriculture bill contains no further delay, while introduced bills would delay the definition two years or repeal it.59 None of that is law today.
The rest of marijuana.
The April order is final and effective. As of October 25, 2026, the separate proceeding on whether to reschedule the remainder of marijuana is still before a DEA administrative law judge. On October 22, the judge declined to reopen the hearing, admitted a GAO report into the record, and allowed optional briefs due October 29 and replies due November 5, with the matter stayed until briefing closes.60 Until that is resolved, door one (marijuana) and door two (THC) both mean Schedule I outside licensed medical channels.
State law.
South Dakota, Iowa, and Nebraska define hemp in their own words. December 11 changes federal status, not those statutes, and it does not resolve the federal-preemption questions CRS has flagged in state hemp litigation.61
Licensed operators and converted cannabinoids.
Whether a state medical licensee could handle a converted cannabinoid under the (g)(2) Schedule III entry depends on the marijuana-versus-THC question. DEA’s stated view points to Schedule I.
Individual advice.
This is legal analysis, not legal advice for any particular product, store, or patient.
Upcoming Dates
October 29 and November 5, 2026: Optional supplemental briefs and replies are due in the DEA proceeding on the remainder of marijuana.
November 12, 2026: The “not capable of being naturally produced” exclusions take effect. The rest of section 781 does not yet apply.
December 10, 2026: Last day the 2018 delta-9 definition governs all other products.
December 11, 2026: The remainder of section 781 takes effect, including the total-THC test, the manufactured-outside-the-plant exclusion, and the 0.4-milligram cap. Federal stopgap funding expires the same day.
January 1, 2027: South Dakota’s rewritten § 38-35-1 takes effect, keeping the total-delta-9 standard.
Coda (Commentary)
I have said before that hemp should never have been legalized as a separate legal species from cannabis. Two federal acts in one year now prove the point from opposite directions. In April, the federal government moved state-licensed medical marijuana to Schedule III. In December, many intoxicating hemp products sold outside that licensed system will fall into Schedule I, whichever of the two entries ultimately applies. Chemistry matters. But under the new federal framework, licensing paperwork can determine whether a cannabis product sits in Schedule III or Schedule I. For patients who have used the hemp aisle as a stand-in for a dispensary, the practical message is blunt: after December 11, a medical card does not make a gas-station product a licensed one. The federal Schedule III category follows the licensed product, not the patient. The fix is not another loophole. It is a real federal exemption for patients, written for people rather than for product categories.
Notes
Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026, Pub. L. No. 119-37, div. B, § 781, 139 Stat. 495, 558–61 (2025),https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ37/html/PLAW-119publ37.htm; Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027, Pub. L. No. 119-103, div. B, § 2019, 140 Stat. 987, 1003 (2026),https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ103/html/PLAW-119publ103.htm.↩
Pub. L. No. 119-37, div. B, § 781(2), 139 Stat. at 559 (new 7 U.S.C. § 1639o(1)(C)(ii)(II), (iv)(II)); Pub. L. No. 119-103, div. B, § 2019, 140 Stat. at 1003.↩
Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Food and Drug Administration Approved Products Containing Marijuana From Schedule I to Schedule III; Corresponding Change to Permit Requirements, 91 Fed. Reg. 22714, 22719, 22722–23 (Apr. 28, 2026) (to be codified at 21 C.F.R. § 1308.13(g)(2)–(4)),https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/04/28/2026-08176/schedules-of-controlled-substances-rescheduling-of-food-and-drug-administration-approved-products.↩
Pub. L. No. 119-37, 139 Stat. at 495 (approved Nov. 12, 2025); id. div. B, § 781, 139 Stat. at 558.↩
Id. § 781(2), 139 Stat. at 558 (new 7 U.S.C. § 1639o(1)(A)).↩
Id., 139 Stat. at 559 (new 7 U.S.C. § 1639o(1)(C)).↩
Id., 139 Stat. at 560 (new 7 U.S.C. § 1639o(3)(C)–(D)).↩
Id. § 781(3), 139 Stat. at 560–61.↩
Pub. L. No. 119-103, div. B, § 2019, 140 Stat. at 1003.↩
Id. div. A, § 106(3), 140 Stat. at 989.↩
Zachary T. Neuhofer, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IF13136, Changes to the Statutory Definition of Hemp and Implications for Agricultural Policy (updated Sept. 28, 2026),https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF13136.↩
Federal Hemp THC Cap Now Set for Dec. 11 After One-Month Delay, Rapid City Sentinel (Oct. 22, 2026),https://therapidcitysentinel.com/federal-hemp-thc-cap-now-set-for-dec-11-after-one-month-delay/ (“Nov. 12, 2026: Products containing synthetic or lab-converted cannabinoids (such as most delta-8, HHC and THC-O) lose federal hemp status.”).↩
Joanna R. Lampe, Cong. Rsch. Serv., LSB11381, Changes to the Federal Definition of Hemp: Legal Considerations Under the Controlled Substances Act (updated Dec. 22, 2025),https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11381.↩
Letter from Terrence L. Boos, Chief, Drug & Chem. Evaluation Section, Diversion Control Div., Drug Enf’t Admin., to Rod Kight, Kight Law Office PC (Feb. 13, 2023), https://cannabusiness.law/wp-content/uploads/DEA-THCO-response-to-Kight.pdf.↩
Specific Listing for Hexahydrocannabinol, A Currently Controlled Schedule I Substance, 91 Fed. Reg. 23913, 23913 (May 4, 2026) (to be codified at 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d)),https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/04/2026-08595/specific-listing-for-hexahydrocannabinol-a-currently-controlled-schedule-i-substance.↩
Neuhofer, supra note 11 (“as of September 28, 2026, such a list has not been published”); Federal Register Document Search for “cannabinoids,” Documents Published Nov. 12, 2025–Oct. 25, 2026, FederalRegister.gov (searched Oct. 25, 2026), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/search?conditions%5Bterm%5D=cannabinoids&conditions%5Bpublication_date%5D%5Bgte%5D=11%2F12%2F2025.↩
Pub. L. No. 119-37, div. B, § 781(2), 139 Stat. at 559 (new 7 U.S.C. § 1639o(1)(C)(ii), (iv)).↩
21 U.S.C. § 802(16)(A)–(B),https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title21/html/USCODE-2024-title21-chap13-subchapI-partA-sec802.htm.↩
21 U.S.C. § 812(c), Schedule I(c)(17),https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title21/html/USCODE-2024-title21-chap13-subchapI-partB-sec812.htm.↩
21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d)(31)(i)–(ii) (2026),https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-1308.11.↩
Lampe, supra note 13.↩
Neuhofer, supra note 11.↩
Specific Listing for Hexahydrocannabinol, 91 Fed. Reg. at 23914.↩
Rescheduling of FDA-Approved Products Containing Marijuana, 91 Fed. Reg. at 22719.↩
Implementation of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, 85 Fed. Reg. 51639, 51641 (Aug. 21, 2020),https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/08/21/2020-17356/implementation-of-the-agriculture-improvement-act-of-2018.↩
AK Futures LLC v. Boyd St. Distro, LLC, 35 F.4th 682, 690–92 (9th Cir. 2022),https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/05/19/21-56133.pdf.↩
Id. at 692–93 (citing Letter from Terrence L. Boos, Drug & Chem. Evaluation Section Chief, Drug Enf’t Admin., to Donna C. Yeatman, Exec. Sec’y, Ala. Bd. of Pharmacy (Sept. 15, 2021)).↩
Anderson v. Diamondback Inv. Grp., LLC, No. 23-1400, slip op. at 35–38 & n.14 (4th Cir. Sept. 4, 2024) (published),https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/231400.P.pdf.↩
Pub. L. No. 119-37, div. B, § 781(2), 139 Stat. at 559 (new 7 U.S.C. § 1639o(1)(C)(ii)(II), (iv)(II)).↩
21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (Schedule I or II substance, “except as provided in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D)”: “not more than 20 years”); id. § 841(b)(1)(D) (“less than 50 kilograms of marihuana,” subject to exceptions for 50 or more plants, hashish, and hashish oil: “not more than 5 years”); id. § 841(b)(1)(E)(i) (Schedule III: “not more than 10 years”); id. § 841(b)(4) (small amount of marihuana for no remuneration “treated as provided in section 844”),https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title21/html/USCODE-2024-title21-chap13-subchapI-partD-sec841.htm.↩
Rescheduling of FDA-Approved Products Containing Marijuana, 91 Fed. Reg. at 22722 (adding 21 C.F.R. § 1308.13(g)(2)–(4)); id. at 22723 (21 C.F.R. § 1308.13(g)(4)(i)–(iii)) (providing that “[n]aturally derived delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinols do not include any material, compound, mixture, or preparation that falls within the definition of hemp”).↩
Lampe, supra note 13.↩
Boos Letter to Kight, supra note 14.↩
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (unlawful to “manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance”); id. § 844(a) (possession),https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title21/html/USCODE-2024-title21-chap13-subchapI-partD-sec844.htm.↩
Jason Karimi, Iowa’s Chapter 204 Hemp Framework Is Headed for a Federal Collision — and the Legislature Needs to Fix It, WeedPress (Jan. 12, 2026),https://weedpress.org/2026/01/12/iowas-chapter-204-hemp-framework-is-headed-for-a-federal-collision-and-the-legislature-needs-to-fix-it/.↩
Rescheduling of FDA-Approved Products Containing Marijuana, 91 Fed. Reg. at 22721 (adding 21 C.F.R. § 1300.01 definition of “State medical marijuana license”); id.at 22722 (adding 21 C.F.R. § 1308.13(g)(2)–(4)); see also id.at 22718 & n.34 (limiting rescheduling to “FDA-approved drug products and marijuana covered by licenses issued under state-medical-marijuana regulatory regimes”).↩
21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (possession unlawful “unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this subchapter or subchapter II”); see Jason Karimi, Patient Legal Risks Solved: A User-Level Exemption Model for Schedule III, WeedPress (June 11, 2026),https://weedpress.org/2026/06/11/patient-legal-risks-solved-a-user-level-exemption-model-for-schedule-iii/; Jason Karimi, What Rescheduling Still Doesn’t Fix for Probationers, Workers, and Patients, WeedPress (Apr. 30, 2026), https://weedpress.org/2026/04/30/what-rescheduling-still-doesnt-fix-for-probationers-workers-and-patients/.↩
Zachary T. Neuhofer, Lisa N. Sacco & Hassan Z. Sheikh, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IN12620, Change to Federal Definition of Hemp and Implications for Federal Enforcement (Dec. 3, 2025), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12620.↩
Lampe, supra note 13.↩
Congressional Committee Directs DEA To Crack Down On Unregulated Cannabis Products That ‘Threaten Consumer Safety’, Marijuana Moment (May 12, 2026),https://www.marijuanamoment.net/congressional-committee-directs-dea-to-crack-down-on-unregulated-cannabis-products-that-threaten-consumer-safety/.↩
Press Release, S.D. Att’y Gen., Attorney General Jackley Joins National Coalition Urging Congress To Strengthen Federal Hemp Reforms (Aug. 5, 2026),https://atg.sd.gov/OurOffice/Media/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?id=3124.↩
S.D. Codified Laws § 38-35-1(5), (17) (2026) (version in effect through Dec. 31, 2026),https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/38-35-1.↩
Id. § 38-35-1(1), (8) (effective Jan. 1, 2027) (as amended by 2026 S.D. Sess. Laws ch. 167, § 1).↩
Id. § 38-35-1(3), (7) (2026) (version in effect through Dec. 31, 2026); id. § 38-35-1(2) (effective Jan. 1, 2027) (as amended by 2026 S.D. Sess. Laws ch. 167, § 1).↩
S.D. Codified Laws § 34-20B-118 (2026) (enacted by 2024 S.D. Sess. Laws ch. 129, § 2),https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/34-20B-118.↩
Id. § 34-20B-117 (2026) (as amended by 2026 S.D. Sess. Laws ch. 151, § 1), https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/34-20B-117.↩
S.B. 61, 101st Leg. Sess. (S.D. 2026) (bill history),https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/26625; see also Jason Karimi, South Dakota Lawmakers Quietly Move to Ban Hemp THC and Expand Drug Enforcement, WeedPress (Jan. 29, 2026), https://weedpress.org/2026/01/29/south-dakota-lawmakers-quietly-move-to-ban-hemp-thc-and-expand-drug-enforcement/.↩
S.D. Codified Laws § 34-20B-14(20) (2026) (as amended through 2026 S.D. Sess. Laws ch. 149, § 1),https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/34-20B-14; id. § 34-20B-1(16)(c) (2026) (as amended through 2026 S.D. Sess. Laws ch. 147, § 1), https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/34-20B-1.↩
Jason Karimi, South Dakota’s Attorney General Answered the Schedule III Question. The Department of Health Still Has Its Own Statute to Answer., WeedPress (Oct. 13, 2026),https://weedpress.org/2026/10/13/south-dakotas-attorney-general-answered-the-schedule-iii-question-the-department-of-health-still-has-its-own-statute-to-answer/.↩
Iowa Code § 204A.2(7) (2026),https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/204A.2.pdf; 7 C.F.R. § 990.1 (2026) (current through Oct. 25, 2026; last amended 2023), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/section-990.1.↩
Iowa Code § 204.2(2)(c)(2) (2026),https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/204.pdf.↩
Id. § 204.14A(3)–(4); Iowa Admin. Code r. 641-156.1 (2026),https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/iac/chapter/641.156.pdf.↩
Iowa Code § 204.7(7) (2026); id. § 124.204(7)(b) (2026),https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/124.204.pdf; see Iowa Legislature, 2026 Code & Acts Sections Amended (91st Gen. Assemb., 2d Sess.) (listing 2026 amendments to § 124.204(2), (4), (6), and (9), and none to chapter 204, chapter 204A, or § 124.204(7)),https://www.legis.iowa.gov/law/statutory/acts/amended?ga=91&session=2.↩
H. Study B. 753, 91st Gen. Assemb. (Iowa 2026) (bill history),https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/billTracking/billHistory?billName=HSB%20753&ga=91.↩
Jason Karimi, Iowa Proposes State Schedule III Placement for Qualifying Medical Marijuana Products. South Dakota Still Has a Separate Scheduling Question., WeedPress (Oct. 15, 2026), https://weedpress.org/2026/10/15/iowa-proposes-state-schedule-iii-placement-for-qualifying-medical-marijuana-products-south-dakota-still-has-a-separate-scheduling-question/.↩
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-503(3) (2026) (as amended through 2024 Neb. Laws LB 262, § 2),https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=2-503; id. § 28-401(14)(c) (2026) (as amended through 2024 Neb. Laws LB 262, § 21),https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-401.↩
L.B. 316, 109th Leg., 1st Sess. (Neb. 2025) (actions),https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_actions.php?DocumentID=59124.↩
Press Release, Neb. Att’y Gen., Attorney General Hilgers Sends Cease and Desist Letters to Every Retail Store in Nebraska Selling THC-Containing Products (Sept. 29, 2025), https://ago.nebraska.gov/news/attorney-general-hilgers-sends-cease-and-desist-letters-every-retail-store-nebraska-selling.↩
Neuhofer, supra note 11.↩
Tom Angell, DEA Judge Denies Marijuana Rescheduling Opponents’ Request To Reopen Hearing For More Testimony, But Allows New Briefs, Marijuana Moment (Oct. 22, 2026), https://www.marijuanamoment.net/dea-judge-denies-marijuana-rescheduling-opponents-request-to-reopen-hearing-for-more-testimony-but-allows-new-briefs/;see also Jason Karimi, DEA ALJ Preliminary Order Confirms Medical Cannabis Rescheduling Is Already Done: June 29 Hearing Limited to the “Remainder” of Marijuana, WeedPress (June 19, 2026),https://weedpress.org/2026/06/19/dea-alj-preliminary-order-confirms-medical-cannabis-rescheduling-is-already-done-june-29-hearing-limited-to-the-remainder-of-marijuana/.↩
Lampe, supra note 13.↩
Leave a Reply