Federal Marijuana Rescheduling Will Have ‘Negligible Impact’ On South Dakota’s Medical Cannabis Program, Attorney General Says

South Dakota’s attorney general says the Trump administration’s move to reschedule medical marijuana will have little effect on the state’s medical cannabis program, concluding that federal rules provide a pathway for state-licensed businesses to continue operating with the necessary registrations.

The opinion, published on Tuesday by Attorney General Marty Jackley (R), comes as officials in states across the U.S. work to understand the implications of the major shift in federal marijuana policy—and after some South Dakota lawmakers sought to repeal the state’s medical cannabis program in light of federal rescheduling.

“Because current Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) administrative rules permit state medical-marijuana facilities to continue operating with proper federal and state registration, the federal rescheduling of marijuana will likely have a negligible impact on South Dakota’s medical-marijuana program,” the attorney general wrote.

“The federal rescheduling of marijuana does not preempt South Dakota’s medical-marijuana program because Congress has not expressly preempted state action, it has not totally occupied the field of marijuana regulation, and South Dakota’s medical-marijuana law does not conflict with the federal scheduling,” he said. “In fact, under DEA’s April 2026 rule, an existing manufacturer, distributor, or dispensary operating under a valid state license may now do so in compliance with federal law if they register with the DEA.”

Under an order issued by Attorney General Todd Blanche in April, marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license immediately moved from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, as did any marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). An administrative hearing is considering broader marijuana rescheduling.

Jackley’s new opinion, which was requested by lawmakers who serve on the legislature’s Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee, said the state has “faced a somewhat analogous situation previously” with respect to federal hemp legalization. It pointed out that a court agreed that police powers are traditionally reserved to states and that a “no preemption” clause in the federal legislation that legalized hemp eliminated any potential for preemption.

“Similarly, federal rules currently permit actors in the state medical-marijuana industry to continue to function so long as they obtain the proper federal and state credentials,” the South Dakota attorney general wrote. “Because federal law accommodates the state’s medical-marijuana program, state law does not conflict with dispensing of Schedule III marijuana or cannabinoid medication under federal law.”

South Dakota doesn’t currently schedule marijuana as a controlled substance under state law, though it does criminalize possession and distribution outside of the medical cannabis program.

“If South Dakota were to choose to reschedule marijuana to a Schedule III controlled substance, then the general rules regarding Schedule III substances would apply to marijuana as with any other Schedule III substance,” Jackley said. “But this action would have to be taken by either the Legislature or the voters, independent from the rescheduling of marijuana federally.”

Lawmakers had laid out six potential options of future state cannabis policy actions in their request to the attorney general, and he replied that “none of them would be excluded by current federal or state law” but that it would be up to the legislature and voters to decide which, if any, to pursue.

“Changes to marijuana’s scheduling by the federal government were accompanied by an explicit pathway through which participants in state medical-marijuana programs may be registered with the federal government and continue to operate,” Jackley said. “Because federal law explicitly permits state medical-marijuana programs, South Dakota’s program may continue to operate as it has without impact from marijuana’s federal rescheduling to a Schedule III controlled substance.

The attorney general’s opinion comes after South Dakota lawmakers weighed legislation this session on federal rescheduling’s impact—including one bill that would have repealed the state’s medical marijuana law 90 days after the attorney general certified that cannabis had been federally rescheduled to Schedule III.

Meanwhile, South Dakota regulators have voiced uncertainty about how federal marijuana rescheduling will work in conjunction with the state’s law. State medical cannabis program administrator Whitney Brunner told lawmakers in August that officials had received little federal guidance beyond requests for information.