The DOJ has once again found itself at the center of a major cannabis debate this time over a delay that could signal a much larger policy shift. Earlier this week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Trump administration requested additional time from the Supreme Court to respond in a case challenging the federal ban on gun ownership by marijuana users. While this move may appear procedural, many in the cannabis industry see it as a strategic step tied to the ongoing timeline for federal cannabis rescheduling.
The case in question, U.S. v. Hammani, tackles whether marijuana users can legally own firearms under federal law. The DOJ’s current stance is rooted in cannabis’ Schedule I classification under the Controlled Substances Act labeling marijuana as a federally illegal substance. But with rescheduling discussions gaining momentum since August, this delay could have deeper implications.
If cannabis is moved from Schedule I to Schedule III, it would no longer be classified as a dangerous drug without medical value. That change would directly undermine the DOJ’s argument in the gun rights case. After all, if cannabis is no longer “illegal” at the federal level, the legal basis for banning users from owning guns weakens dramatically. This potential contradiction might explain why the DOJ is requesting more time to avoid defending a policy that may soon become outdated.
Pushing this case into early 2026 conveniently aligns with several key milestones, including the Republican primary season, the 2026 federal budget rollout, and renewed conversations around cannabis banking reform. Timing, in this case, seems anything but accidental. The DOJ could be strategically pacing its actions to align cannabis reform with broader political objectives, ensuring any major announcement lands when it will have maximum impact.
For cannabis operators, the DOJ’s delay signals more than just bureaucratic maneuvering. It hints at preparation for a significant federal shift. Should rescheduling occur in early 2026, it could unlock enormous economic potential removing Section 280E tax restrictions, boosting valuations, and driving new waves of mergers and acquisitions.
On the flip side, if the DOJ continues to delay, the industry faces prolonged uncertainty and tighter financial pressures.
Ultimately, this is not just about cannabis or gun ownership it’s about the DOJ managing a domino effect of legal and political changes. The agency must navigate its dual roles: defending current law while anticipating reforms that could soon rewrite it entirely.
In the end, the DOJ’s cautious timing may be less about hesitation and more about orchestration. Whether intentional or not, its actions are shaping the timeline for one of the most consequential policy shifts in modern cannabis history. The cannabis industry, investors, and policymakers alike are watching closely because when the DOJ finally makes its move, the effects will ripple far beyond the courtroom.
