South Dakota AG says federal marijuana rescheduling will not impact the state's medical program

South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley has issued Official Opinion 26-06 concluding that the federal government's reclassification of marijuana to Schedule III will likely have a negligible impact on the state's medical-marijuana program, according to the opinion and a related press release from his office.

The opinion, dated Oct. 6, 2026, and publicized in a Tuesday, Oct. 13, press release, answered a question from State Sen. John Carley, vice chair of the legislative Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee, joined by committee Chair Josephine Garcia, Sen. Lauren Nelson and Rep. Bobbi Andera. Jackley wrote that because Drug Enforcement Administration rules permit state medical-marijuana facilities to keep operating with proper federal and state registration, the federal change does not conflict with South Dakota's program.

In the press release, Jackley said federal law explicitly permits state medical-marijuana programs, so South Dakota's program may continue as it has. How the program functions in the future, he wrote, remains a policy choice for the Legislature or the state's voters. Dakota News Now reported the same conclusions on Oct. 13, citing Jackley's response to Carley's request.

The opinion notes that on April 28, 2026, the DEA issued a final order moving marijuana and marijuana extract that are subject to a state medical-marijuana license — and naturally derived delta-9 THC in those products, as well as FDA-approved products containing them — to Schedule III, while other marijuana remains in Schedule I. Under that framework, an existing manufacturer, distributor or dispensary with a valid state license may operate in compliance with federal law if it registers with the DEA, the opinion states.

South Dakota's medical program grew out of Citizen Initiated Measure 26, approved by voters on Nov. 3, 2020, and effective July 1, 2021. Possession and distribution outside that program remain prohibited under state law, the opinion says. Jackley's analysis addresses program continuity under federal rescheduling; it is not legal advice for individual patients or businesses.