In a recent decision, the Supreme Court's Republican-appointed majority has overturned the Chevron doctrine, which grants broad authority to administrative agencies. This decision has raised concerns about how the cannabis industry will be regulated moving forward and has created a sense of chaos among operators.

The Chevron doctrine, established in 1984, required courts to defer to the expertise of administrative agencies when the legislative intent of a law was ambiguous. This doctrine served as a cornerstone of how regulators and businesses interacted. However, the Supreme Court's ruling has now diminished the authority of the administrative state, leaving cannabis operators grappling with uncertainty.

Regulation in the cannabis industry has already been a source of frustration for operators, as the regulatory infrastructure is still being built and norms are still being defined. While some view any curtailment of regulation as a positive for cannabis, the overruling of Chevron in this manner is seen as detrimental for operators who seek certainty.

One significant impact of this ruling is on the matter of rescheduling cannabis. Previously, rescheduling had been progressing as a regulatory change rather than a legislative one. However, with regulations now lacking the same force of law, those working towards rescheduling face increased judicial scrutiny and regulatory uncertainty.

Opponents of rescheduling now have a strong chance of challenging it in court, potentially ending the process altogether. Additionally, the appeals process could be used to postpone the new regulations for years, further delaying any progress towards equitable drug policy.

The ripple effects of the Supreme Court decision are also expected to affect the enactment of new regulations. While the ruling may provide an opportunity to challenge regulators who have defied the will of the people, it can also discourage the consumer protections that cannabis operators desire. Prohibitionists may seize on lax safety standards to further their campaigns of deceit and fear-mongering.

Interestingly, the rescheduling proposal is already being challenged, even before the comment period has ended. Opponents within and outside the industry are actively seeking ways to prevent the move. The Chevron repeal has opened a door that is now an extremely likely target for legal challenges.

The only way to address the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court's ruling is through congressional action. With the end of Chevron deference, courts will independently interpret statutes and, in all likelihood, rule against broad delegations of authority that lack clear guidelines. Critics of rescheduling argue that the Controlled Substances Act grants too much discretion to the attorney general without proper oversight or standards.

Ultimately, it is highly probable that the rescheduling proposal will not survive the court challenges. The outcome, whether positive or negative, depends on one's perspective on rescheduling. However, regardless of opinions, it is unlikely that the 280E tax exemptions will be granted anytime soon.

Congress holds the power to address the uncertainties faced by the cannabis industry. To prevent a return to the regulatory ambiguity of the past, lawmakers must create clear laws instead of relying heavily on unelected regulators. This will present new challenges for the cannabis industry, but it is crucial for progress and to ensure a regulated market that meets the needs of both operators and consumers.

In conclusion, the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Chevron doctrine has created a sense of chaos and uncertainty within the cannabis industry. Operators now face challenges regarding rescheduling and the enactment of new regulations. Congressional action is needed to address these uncertainties and provide a clear framework for the cannabis industry to thrive.