HR-5068-119
Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology.
Sponsored by Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
What it does
This bill would remove cannabis (marijuana) and tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) from the federal Controlled Substances Act's Schedule I, effectively ending federal criminalization of cannabis. It would require courts to expunge prior federal cannabis convictions and allow individuals currently serving sentences for cannabis offenses to petition for resentencing. The bill would also impose a federal excise tax on cannabis products — starting at 5% and rising to 8% — with revenues directed into a new "Opportunity Trust Fund" to fund community reinvestment grants, legal aid, and small business loans for individuals and communities most affected by prior cannabis enforcement.
Who benefits
The approximately 40,000 people currently incarcerated on federal cannabis charges who could seek resentencing or release. The estimated 1.5 million people arrested annually on drug charges, over 200,000 of whom are cannabis-related, who would no longer face federal prosecution. Black and Latino communities, who the bill's findings note are arrested at disproportionately higher rates despite similar usage rates across racial groups. Existing state-legal cannabis businesses, which would gain access to federal banking, loans, and SBA programs currently denied to them. Prospective minority cannabis entrepreneurs who would receive targeted small business grants. Researchers who would gain easier access to cannabis for scientific study. States that have already legalized cannabis, which would see federal law align with their own statutes.
Who is hurt
Federal law enforcement agencies and prosecutors who would lose jurisdiction over cannabis offenses. Drug rehabilitation and treatment programs that receive funding tied to cannabis enforcement. Communities and industries that compete with cannabis businesses for capital and consumer spending. Transportation workers and safety-sensitive employees who could face continued drug testing under preserved transportation agency authority, creating ongoing employment uncertainty. Illicit cannabis market participants who would face a newly taxed and regulated legal market. Taxpayers in states that have not legalized cannabis, who may see increased federal resources directed toward a product their state still prohibits. Cannabis businesses in states without legalization that could face a patchwork of conflicting state and federal rules.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that federal cannabis prohibition has failed on its own terms while producing severe racial disparities: Black Americans are nearly four times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession than white Americans despite equal usage rates, and Black men receive drug sentences averaging 13.1% longer than white men for the same offenses. They contend that with 47 states having already modified their cannabis laws and a $20 billion legal market already operating, continued federal criminalization creates a legal contradiction that harms minority entrepreneurs — fewer than 4% of cannabis business owners are Black — by blocking their access to federal banking and SBA loans. Descheduling, they argue, would resolve this contradiction, generate new federal tax revenue, and direct resources to the communities most harmed by decades of enforcement.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that removing cannabis from Schedule I eliminates the federal government's primary legal tool for regulating a psychoactive substance with documented public health risks, including links to adolescent brain development impairment and increased rates of cannabis use disorder. They contend that the bill's excise tax structure — starting at just 5% — may be too low to deter youth use or offset public health costs, and that the expungement and resentencing provisions could release individuals whose convictions involved conduct beyond simple possession. Critics also argue that the bill creates a regulatory gap: cannabis would be descheduled before the FDA has established a comprehensive product safety framework, potentially leaving consumers without adequate protections for potency, labeling, and contaminants in a rapidly expanding market.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to schedule and deschedule controlled substances rests on the Commerce Clause; Gonzales v. Raich (2005) held that federal prohibition of even locally grown cannabis was within Congress's commerce power, meaning Congress has broad authority to reverse that policy legislatively. The retroactive expungement and resentencing provisions implicate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the separation of powers, as Congress would be directing courts to revisit final criminal judgments — an area where courts have historically scrutinized legislative interference with judicial finality.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Attorney General and HHS) gains significant new rulemaking authority to implement descheduling and regulate cannabis products, while Congress retains oversight through the trust fund's appropriations structure and the Bureau of Labor Statistics reporting mandate; federal courts serve as a check on the retroactive resentencing provisions.
Historical precedent
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 originally scheduled cannabis as Schedule I; no prior federal legislation has successfully descheduled a major controlled substance, though alcohol prohibition was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933, representing the closest structural analogue of reversing a federal intoxicant ban.