A CNBC report published August 15 describes cannabis policy as an emerging issue in the 2026 midterm elections. Duane Boise CEO MMJ International Holdings says "says implementation does not equal legal finality as courts review the administration's marijuana rescheduling order and CMS cannabinoid initiative."
WASHINGTON, D.C. / ACCESS Newswire / August 16, 2026 / MMJ International Holdings, Inc. ("MMJ") today addressed a growing misconception surrounding the administration's accelerated marijuana and hemp policies: because those policies remain in effect, MMJ's federal challenges supposedly are not standing in their way.
That conclusion mistakes implementation for legal finality.
Attorney General Order No. 6754-2026 is presently operating. Certain state-licensed medical marijuana operators are claiming relief from Internal Revenue Code §280E. Companies have applied for expedited Drug Enforcement Administration registrations. The DEA administrative proceeding concerning broader marijuana rescheduling continues, while the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is implementing a separate hemp-derived cannabinoid initiative.
None of that establishes that the challenged actions were lawfully issued. It establishes that the government implemented them before meaningful judicial review was completed.
MMJ does not claim that its litigation has already stopped the administration's cannabis agenda. MMJ's position is that the agenda remains subject to federal challenges capable of producing a stay, remand, vacatur or relief directed at particular provisions.
That is the difference between a policy currently operating and one possessing a durable legal foundation.
Cannabis Enters the 2026 Election
A CNBC report published August 15 describes cannabis policy as an emerging issue in the 2026 midterm elections.
Cannabis-related ballot measures are before voters in Massachusetts and Idaho. Marijuana policy has entered gubernatorial races in Kansas and Iowa. Seventeen Senate Democrats reintroduced the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act on July 16, while 22 Republican senators have urged the administration to halt or reconsider marijuana reclassification.
Cannabis may not rank above the economy, immigration or national security as a national voting issue. But it has become a fault line inside the governing coalition.
The administration is seeking to deliver medical-marijuana and CBD access to supportive voters while facing opposition from Republican senators, public-safety organizations, state officials and medical experts.
A policy does not need to be the country's leading electoral issue to influence campaign messaging, voter enthusiasm, fundraising, industry support or the administration's desire to deliver a completed accomplishment before Election Day.
The Government's Demand for Speed Is Documented
The administration's own public documents establish that acceleration was an explicit objective.
On December 18, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14370, titled "Increasing Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research." The order directed the Attorney General to complete marijuana rescheduling "in the most expeditious manner" and instructed federal officials to develop research models intended to improve access to hemp-derived cannabinoid products in accordance with federal law.
The order was published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2025.
CMS posted the Substance Access Beneficiary Engagement Incentive on March 20, 2026, and made it effective on April 1. The program permits participating entities in certain CMS Innovation Center models to furnish eligible Medicare beneficiaries with as much as $500 annually in qualifying hemp-derived products.
On April 22, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed Attorney General Order No. 6754-2026. Published at 91 Fed. Reg. 22714 and effective April 28, the order transferred FDA-approved marijuana products and marijuana subject to qualifying state medical marijuana licenses from Schedule I to Schedule III. It also established an expedited DEA registration pathway for qualifying state-licensed operators.
In June, DEA began an accelerated administrative hearing concerning the broader rescheduling of marijuana.
In August, CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz urged senators to protect access to hemp-derived CBD products, including through Medicare Advantage supplemental benefits for chronically ill beneficiaries.
The midterm elections are scheduled for November 3.
MMJ does not need to prove that election politics motivated any particular government official. The Administrative Procedure Act exists because governmental urgency does not eliminate statutory authority, reasoned decision-making, public participation or judicial review.
The question is not whether federal officials wanted a fast result. The President expressly ordered expedited action.
The question is whether the agencies remained within the authority and procedures Congress prescribed while producing that result.
The Statutory Question Before the Court
Attorney General Order No. 6754-2026 was issued under 21 U.S.C. §811(d)(1), a provision permitting the Attorney General to schedule a substance to carry out United States treaty obligations.
That provision allows the Attorney General to act "without making the specific findings otherwise required" under the Controlled Substances Act.
MMJ's challenge concerns the permissible reach of that exception.
Congress's ordinary scheduling process requires a scientific and medical evaluation from the Department of Health and Human Services, consideration of eight statutory factors and rulemaking on the record after an opportunity for a hearing.
MMJ contends that §811(d)(1) does not permit the government to bypass that process when the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs does not compel one particular scheduling outcome.
MMJ's challenge also asks whether the Controlled Substances Act permits the government to place chemically similar marijuana in different federal schedules based on whether the product is covered by a qualifying state medical-marijuana license rather than differences in its pharmacology.
Those questions have not been resolved by the courts.
The Government's Standing Trap
The government argues that MMJ lacks standing because it is not commercially selling an authorized cannabinoid product.
That argument omits why MMJ remains outside the commercial market.
MMJ followed the federal pharmaceutical pathway.
The company has spent more than eight years and more than $10 million developing standardized cannabinoid medicines. It evaluated multiple formulations before selecting a soft-gel capsule containing 5 milligrams of CBD and 2.5 milligrams of THC.
Catalent Pharma Solutions manufactured thousands of finished capsules as a standardized final dosage form.
MMJ holds two Investigational New Drug files with FDA for product candidates involving Huntington's disease and multiple sclerosis. Its Huntington's disease program received Orphan Drug Designation. MMJ also established a DEA-inspected Schedule I analytical laboratory and completed extensive chemistry, manufacturing, analytical and stability work.
MMJ's product candidates remain investigational, have not been approved by FDA and remain subject to a Full Clinical Hold. No clinical trials involving the candidates have been completed, and MMJ does not commercially market them.
The government is therefore using MMJ's compliance with federal law as the reason MMJ supposedly cannot challenge advantages granted to competitors that entered the commercial market without completing the same federal process.
The resulting standing trap is straightforward:
Federal law requires MMJ to remain off the commercial market while completing FDA and DEA requirements.
The government grants qualifying state-licensed operators immediate Schedule III benefits and an expedited federal registration pathway.
MMJ challenges the unequal regulatory treatment.
The government argues that MMJ cannot challenge it because MMJ is not already operating in the market from which federal law excluded it.
"MMJ followed the federal pathway, manufactured its investigational medicine and remained off the market because federal law required it," said Duane Boise, chief executive officer of MMJ International Holdings. "The government cannot reward competitors that avoided that pathway and then use MMJ's compliance as the reason we cannot challenge the competitive advantage it created."
Competitor-standing doctrine addresses injuries resulting from government-created competitive advantages. MMJ contends that it should not be required to violate federal law or commercially market an unapproved drug before challenging preferential treatment granted to competing cannabinoid businesses.
Five Continuing Risks to the Policy
No court has granted MMJ a stay or entered a final judgment invalidating the challenged actions. That does not make the litigation inconsequential.
1. The April Order Remains Subject to Judicial Review
The D.C. Circuit could determine that the Attorney General exceeded the authority provided by §811(d)(1), failed to follow required procedures or created a scheduling structure inconsistent with the Controlled Substances Act.
Depending on the court's conclusions regarding standing, statutory authority, procedure and severability, the court could remand or vacate all or part of the order.
2. The Expedited Registration System Is Not Legally Final
The April order established preferential registration procedures for qualifying state medical marijuana operators.
If the registration provisions are vacated or found inseverable from the state-license classification, applicants relying on accelerated federal entry could lose a central benefit of the order.
3. Continuing Financial Benefits Depend on the Order's Survival
State medical marijuana operators are relying on Schedule III treatment for §280E relief, financing, expansion and business valuations.
Vacatur or remand could create uncertainty regarding future tax treatment, registration rights and investments made in reliance on the order. The treatment of previously claimed benefits would depend on the court's remedy, the effective date of any relief and subsequent government guidance.
Reliance developed after an agency action does not, by itself, determine whether that action was lawful.
4. The CMS Appeal Could Restore Merits Review
The district court dismissed the CMS case on threshold grounds and did not determine whether CMS lawfully created the Substance Access Beneficiary Engagement Incentive.
During the May 1 hearing, the district court asked government counsel whether MMJ was the plaintiffs' best candidate for standing. Counsel responded:
"In the abstract, yes. But based on the facts they've presented to the Court, no."
That exchange confirms that the government recognized MMJ as the plaintiffs' most plausible competitor-standing candidate while disputing whether MMJ's evidentiary showing was sufficient.
If the D.C. Circuit finds standing, the case could return to the district court for consideration of CMS's statutory authority, administrative procedure, notice and comment, agency consistency and the adequacy of the public administrative record.
5. The DEA Record Could Complicate Broader Rescheduling
Testimony in the DEA hearing has addressed whether marijuana possesses known and reproducible chemistry, adequate safety, adequate and well-controlled evidence of efficacy, consistent manufacturing standards and effective controls against diversion.
Findings unfavorable to broader rescheduling could complicate final agency action and become relevant to continuing disputes concerning the government's scientific and legal framework.
Implementation Is Not Finality
The administration delivered several significant cannabis-policy actions before the midterm elections.
It expanded access to certain hemp-derived cannabinoid products through a CMS initiative. It granted Schedule III treatment to qualifying state medical marijuana. It opened the door to §280E relief. It created an expedited DEA registration pathway and restarted proceedings concerning broader rescheduling.
But speed and legal durability are different things.
A policy implemented rapidly can still be remanded. A registration pathway accepting applications can still be vacated. A standing dismissal can still be reversed. An administrative proceeding can still produce findings unfavorable to the policy being considered.
MMJ has not claimed that it already stopped the administration's cannabis policy. MMJ has placed the legality of that policy before the federal courts and created a direct pathway through which its foundation may be tested.
"That is not standing outside the process," Boise said. "It is standing directly in its path."
About MMJ International Holdings, Inc.
MMJ International Holdings, Inc. is a privately held pharmaceutical company developing standardized cannabinoid-based investigational medicines through the FDA drug-development process.
Through its subsidiaries, MMJ BioPharma Cultivation, Inc. and MMJ BioPharma Labs, Inc., MMJ is pursuing federally compliant cultivation, analytical, manufacturing and clinical-development capabilities for potential treatments involving Huntington's disease and multiple sclerosis.
CONTACT:
Madison Hisey
MHisey@mmjih.com
203-231-8583
SOURCE: MMJ International Holdings
View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire:
https://www.accessnewswire.com/newsroom/en/healthcare-and-pharmaceutical/mmj-federal-challenges-put-trump-administrations-marijuana-rescheduli-1207837
