The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

October 9, 2019 – January 19, 2023 R45948

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA):
January 19, 2023
A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress
Joanna R. Lampe
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) establishes a unified legal framework to regulate certain
Legislative Attorney
drugs that are deemed to pose a risk of abuse and dependence. The CSA may apply to drugs that

are medical or recreational, legally or illicitly distributed, but the statute does not apply to all
drugs. Rather, it applies to drugs and other substances that have been designated for control by

Congress or through administrative proceedings. The CSA also applies to controlled substance
analogues that are intended to mimic the effects of controlled substances and to certain listed chemicals—precursor
chemicals commonly used to manufacture controlled substances.
Controlled substances subject to the CSA are divided into categories known as Schedules I through V based on their medical
utility and their potential for abuse and dependence. Substances considered to pose the greatest risk to the public health and
safety are subject to the most stringent controls and sanctions. A lower schedule number corresponds to greater restrictions,
so substances in Schedule I are subject to the strictest controls, while substances in Schedule V are subject to the least strict.
Many substances regulated under the CSA are also subject to other federal or state regulations, including the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is the federal agency primarily responsible for implementing and enforcing the
CSA. DEA may designate a substance for control through notice-and-comment rulemaking if the substance satisfies the
applicable statutory criteria. The agency may also place a substance under temporary control on an emergency basis if the
substance poses an imminent hazard to public safety. In addition, DEA may designate a substance for control if required by
the United States’ international treaty obligations. In the alternative, Congress may place a substance under control by statute.
The CSA simultaneously aims to ensure that patients have access to pharmaceutical controlled substances for legitimate
medical purposes while also seeking to protect public health from the dangers of controlled substances diverted into or
produced for the illicit market. To accomplish those two goals, the statute creates two overlapping legal schemes.
Registration provisions require entities working with controlled substances to register with DEA and take various steps to
prevent diversion and misuse of controlled substances. Trafficking provisions establish penalties for the production,
distribution, and possession of controlled substances outside the legitimate scope of the registration system. DEA is primarily
responsible for enforcing the CSA’s registration provisions and works with the Criminal Division of the Department of
Justice to enforce the Act’s trafficking provisions. Violations of the registration provisions generally are not criminal
offenses, but certain serious violations may result in criminal prosecutions yielding fines and even short prison sentences.
Violations of the trafficking provisions are criminal offenses that may result in large fines and lengthy prison sentences.
During the 117th Congress, significant legal developments related to controlled substances regulation occurred via executive
branch actions, court decisions, and enacted federal and state legislation. Members of Congress also introduced a number of
proposals to amend the CSA in various ways. For instance, the 117th Congress confronted ongoing issues related to the
opioid epidemic, including the regulation of the powerful opioid fentanyl and its analogues and the legality of supervised
consumption sites. Recent years also saw developments in marijuana law and policy, including a 2022 presidential grant of
clemency for federal and D.C. marijuana possession offenses and a growing divergence between federal and state marijuana
laws. Members of the 117th Congress reintroduced legislation such as the MORE Act (H.R. 3617) and introduced the
Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (S. 4591), both of which would have removed marijuana from control under
the CSA. Members also introduced other bills that would have addressed specific aspects of the divergence between federal
and state marijuana law, including proposals seeking to facilitate clinical research involving marijuana and other Schedule I
controlled substances, expand medical practitioners’ ability to prescribe controlled substances via telemedicine, and address
sentencing disparities between CSA offenses involving crack and powder cocaine.
Congressional Research Service

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

Congressional Research Service

link to page 6 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 16 link to page 22 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

harmaceutical drugs play a vital role in American public health. Surveys by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) between 2015 and 2018 estimated that over
48% of Americans had used one or more prescription drugs in the last 30 days.1 But both
P pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical drugs may also pose serious public health risks.
The CDC reports that 106,699 Americans died of drug overdoses in 2021.2 The
Controlled Substances Act3 (CSA or the Act) seeks to balance those competing considerations.4
The CSA regulates controlled substances—pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical drugs and
other substances that are deemed to pose a risk of abuse and dependence.5 By establishing rules
for the proper handling of controlled substances6 and imposing penalties for any illicit production,
distribution, or possession of such substances,7 the Act seeks to protect the public from the
dangers of controlled substances while also ensuring that patients have access to pharmaceutical
controlled substances for legitimate medical purposes.8
This report provides an overview of the CSA and select legal issues that have arisen under the
Act, with a focus on legal issues that may be relevant to the 118th Congress. The report first
summarizes the history of the CSA and explains how the regulation of controlled substances
under the CSA overlaps with other federal and state regulatory regimes.9 It then outlines the five
main categories of substances subject to the Act—known as schedules—and discusses how
substances are added to the schedules.10 The report next outlines the CSA’s registration
requirements, which govern the activities of individuals and entities that register with the
government to receive authorization to handle pharmaceutical controlled substances,11 before
summarizing the CSA’s criminal trafficking provisions, which apply to controlled-substance-
related activities that are not authorized under the Act.12 Finally, the report outlines select legal
considerations for Congress related to the CSA, including issues related to the response to the
opioid epidemic, the growing divergence between the status of marijuana under federal and state
law, legal limits on clinical research and medical use of certain controlled substances, CSA

1 See CDC, Therapeutic Drug Use, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/drug-use-therapeutic.htm (last visited Dec. 28,
2022).
2 See Merianne Rose Spencer, et al., Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 2001-2021, NCHS DATA BRIEF No.
457 (Dec. 2022).
3 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-904.
4 See id. §§ 801(1), (2).
5 See id. §§ 802(6), 811. The CSA adopts the definition of “drug” used in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
See 21 U.S.C. § 802(12); id. § 321(g)(1) (“The term ‘drug’ means (A) articles recognized in the official United States
Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any
supplement to any of them; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention
of disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of
the body of man or other animals; and (D) articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in clause
(A), (B), or (C).”). The CSA does not apply exclusively to “drugs,” providing more broadly for the control of any “drug
or other substance” included in the CSA’s schedules. 21 U.S.C. § 802(6). Substances subject to the CSA may include
plants, such as marijuana or peyote, or chemicals not generally recognized as drugs. However, for the sake of
simplicity, this report at times refers to “drugs” subject to the Act.
6 See id. §§ 821-832.
7 See id. §§ 841-865.
8 See id. §§ 801(1), (2).
9 See infra “Background and Scope of the CSA” and “Other Regulatory Schemes.”
10 See infra “Classification of Controlled Substances.”
11 See infra “Registration Requirements.”
12 See infra “Trafficking Provisions.”
Congressional Research Service
1

link to page 26 link to page 6 link to page 6 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

regulation of prescribing controlled substances via telemedicine, and criminal sentences for CSA
offenses involving crack cocaine.13
Background and Scope of the CSA
Congress has regulated drugs in some capacity since the 19th century. Federal drug regulation
began with tariffs, import and export controls, and purity and labeling requirements applicable to
narcotic drugs such as opium and coca leaves and their derivatives.14 With the passage of the
Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914, Congress began in earnest to regulate the domestic trade in
narcotic drugs.15 The Harrison Act imposed federal oversight of the legal trade in narcotic drugs
and imposed criminal penalties for illicit trafficking in narcotics.16 Over the course of the 20th
century, the list of drugs subject to federal control expanded beyond narcotic drugs to include
marijuana, depressants, stimulants, and hallucinogens.17
In 1970, Congress revamped federal drug regulation by enacting the Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act.18 That act repealed nearly all existing federal substance control laws
and, for the first time, imposed a unified framework of federal controlled substance regulation.19
Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act is known as the Controlled
Substances Act.20
The CSA regulates certain drugs and other substances—whether medical or recreational, legally
or illicitly distributed—that are found to pose a risk of abuse and dependence.21 In enacting the
CSA, Congress recognized two competing interests related to drug regulation. On one hand,
many drugs “have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the
health and general welfare of the American people.”22 On the other hand, “illegal importation,
manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a
substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.”23
Accordingly, the Act simultaneously aims to protect the public from the dangers of controlled
substances while ensuring access to controlled substances for legitimate purposes.
To accomplish those two goals, the statute imposes two overlapping legal schemes. Registration
provisions require individuals and entities working with controlled substances to register with the
government, take steps to prevent diversion and misuse of controlled substances, and report
certain information to regulators.24 Trafficking provisions establish penalties for the production,

13 See infra “Legal Considerations for the 118th Congress.”
14 Thomas M. Quinn & Gerald T. McLaughlin, The Evolution of Federal Drug Control Legislation, 22 CATH. U.L.
REV. 586, 589-93 (1973).
15 Pub. L. No. 63-223, 38 Stat. 785 (1915).
16 See Quinn & McLaughlin, supra note 14 at 593.
17 Id. at 600-03.
18 Pub. L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236 (1970). Congress has the authority to regulate controlled substances under the
Commerce Clause. See Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 15 (2004).
19 Quinn & McLaughlin, supra note 14 at 605.
20 Title III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act is the closely related Controlled Substances
Import and Export Act. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 951-971.
21 See 21 U.S.C. §§ 811, 812.
22 Id. § 801(1).
23 Id. § 801(2).
24 See id. §§ 821-832.
Congressional Research Service
2

link to page 21 link to page 8 link to page 10 link to page 12 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

distribution, and possession of controlled substances outside the legitimate scope of the
registration system.25
The CSA does not apply to all drugs. As discussed below, substances must generally be identified
for control (either individually or as a class) to fall within the scope of the Act.26 For medical
drugs, the CSA primarily applies to prescription drugs, not drugs available over the counter.27
Moreover, the statute does not apply to all prescription drugs but rather to a subset of those drugs
deemed to warrant additional controls.28 As for non-pharmaceutical drugs, well-known
recreational drugs such as marijuana, cocaine,29 heroin, and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) are
all controlled substances, as are numerous lesser-known substances, some of which are identified
only by their chemical formulas.30 Some recreational drugs are not classified as federally
controlled substances.31 Alcohol and tobacco, which might otherwise qualify as drugs potentially
warranting control under the CSA, are explicitly excluded from the scope of the Act,32 as is hemp
that meets certain statutory requirements.33 Finally, it is possible for legitimate researchers and
illicit drug manufacturers to formulate new drugs not listed in any of the Act’s schedules. Even if
those drugs are similar to existing controlled substances, they may fall outside the scope of the
CSA unless they are classified as controlled substances.34 In some cases, however, substances not
specifically listed in the CSA’s schedules may nonetheless be subject to CSA regulation as
controlled substance analogues.35

25 Id. §§ 841-865.
26 Id. § 811.
27 Id. § 829; see also infra “Prescriptions.” The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also regulates pharmaceutical
drugs, including pharmaceutical controlled substances, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. See infra
“Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”
28 The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has estimated that 10%-11% of all drug prescriptions written in the
United States are for controlled substances. See DEA, Dispensing of Controlled Substances to Residents at Long Term
Care Facilities, 75 Fed. Reg. 37,463, 37,464 (June 29, 2010).
29 Although cocaine is commonly considered a non-pharmaceutical drug, it has been placed in Schedule II, reflecting a
finding that it has an accepted medical use. See 21 C.F.R. § 1308.12(b)(4); see also infra “Overview of Schedules.”
30 The full schedules are promulgated at 21 C.F.R. §§ 1308.11-1308.15.
31 For example, Salvia divinorum (an herb with hallucinogenic effects) and kratom (a tropical tree whose leaves may
have either stimulant or sedative effects depending on dosage) are not subject to the CSA at this writing, although DEA
has identified them as “drugs of concern.” DEA, DRUGS OF ABUSE: A DEA RESOURCE GUIDE, 84-85 (2017).
32 See 21 U.S.C. § 802(6).
33 Id. § 802(16)(B)(i). Hemp and marijuana are both varieties of the cannabis plant. Hemp is defined as “the plant
Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant ... with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3
percent on a dry weight basis.” 7 U.S.C. § 1639(o). The cannabis plant and most products produced from that plant
remain controlled substances subject to the CSA, unless they meet the statutory definition of hemp. See 21 C.F.R.
§ 1308.11(d)(23).
34 See The Countdown: Fentanyl Analogues & the Expiring Emergency Scheduling Order: Hearing Before the Sen.
Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. 1, 4 (2019) (statement of the U.S. Dep’t of Justice) [hereinafter, DOJ
Testimony]; see also CRS Report R42066, Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress, by Lisa N. Sacco and
Kristin Finklea.
35 See infra “Analogues and Listed Chemicals.”
Congressional Research Service
3

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

Other Regulatory Schemes
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
Many drugs classified as controlled substances subject to the CSA are also subject to other legal
regimes. For example, all pharmaceutical drugs, including those subject to the Act, are subject to
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).36 The U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is the agency primarily responsible for enforcing the FD&C Act, which,
among other things, prohibits the “introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of any ... drug ... that is adulterated or misbranded.”37 The FD&C Act defines
misbranding broadly: a drug is considered misbranded if, among other things, its labeling,
advertising, or promotion “is false or misleading in any particular.”38 Unlabeled drugs are
considered misbranded,39 as are prescription drugs that FDA has not approved, including
imported drugs.40 The FD&C Act provides that a drug is deemed to be adulterated if, among other
things, it “consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance,” “it has
been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions,” its container is made of “any
poisonous or deleterious substance,” or its strength, quality, or purity is not as represented.41
The key aims of the FD&C Act are related to but distinct from those of the CSA. The CSA
establishes distribution controls to prevent the misuse of substances deemed to pose a potential
danger to the public welfare.42 The FD&C Act, by contrast, is a consumer protection statute that
seeks to protect consumers from obtaining unsafe or ineffective drugs (and other public health
products) through commercial channels.43 Any person or organization that produces, distributes,
or otherwise works with prescription drugs that are also controlled substances must comply with
the requirements of both the CSA and the FD&C Act.
State Laws Addressing Controlled Substances
With respect to both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical drugs, many drugs subject to the
CSA are also subject to state controlled substance laws.44 Such state laws often mirror federal law,
and they are relatively uniform across jurisdictions because almost all states have adopted a
version of a model statute called the Uniform Controlled Substances Act (UCSA).45 However,

36 21 U.S.C. §§ 301-399i.
37 Id. § 331(a).
38 Id. § 352.
39 See United States v. Wood, 8 F.3d 33, 1993 WL 425948 (Table) at *3 (9th Cir. 1993).
40 See, e.g., In re Canadian Import Antitrust Litigation, 470 F.3d 785, 788-90 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v.
Patwardhan, 422 Fed. App’x. 614, 616-17 (9th Cir. 2011). Misbranding also includes misrepresenting that a substance
offered for sale is a brand-name drug. See, e.g., United States v. Xin He, 405 Fed. App’x 220, 221 (9th Cir. 2010). The
FD&C Act also contains a separate provision stating, “No person shall introduce or deliver for introduction into
interstate commerce any new drug” unless the drug is approved under the FD&C Act. 21 U.S.C. § 355(a).
41 21 U.S.C. § 351.
42 See id. § 801(1) (“The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled
substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.”).
43 See, e.g., United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 11 (1970) (invoking the “public interest in protecting consumers
throughout the Nation from misbranded drugs”); see also CRS Report R43609, Enforcement of the Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act: Select Legal Issues, by Jennifer A. Staman.
44 ALEX KREIT, CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES: CRIME, REGULATION, AND POLICY 628 (2013).
45 Richard L. Braun, Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 1990, 13 CAMPBELL L. REV. 365, 365 (1991) (The UCSA
Congressional Research Service
4

link to page 34 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 34 link to page 16 link to page 22 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

states are free to modify the UCSA, and have done so to varying extents.46 Moreover, the model
statute does not specify sentences for violations, so penalties for state controlled substance
offenses vary widely.47
There is not a complete overlap between drugs subject to federal and state controlled substance
laws for several reasons. First, states may elect to impose controls on substances that are not
subject to the CSA.48 For example, some states have controlled the fentanyl analogues
benzylfentanyl and thenylfentanyl, but those substances are not currently scheduled under the
CSA.49 Second, states may wish to adopt federal scheduling decisions at the state level but lag
behind federal regulators due to the need for a separate state scheduling process.50 Third, states
may decide not to impose state controls on substances subject to the CSA, or they may choose to
impose modified versions of federal controls at the state level.51
Crucially, however, the states cannot alter federal law, and when state and federal law conflict, the
federal law controls.52 Thus, when states “legalize” or “decriminalize” a federally controlled
substance (as many have done recently with respect to marijuana), the sole result is that the
substance is no longer controlled under state law.53 Any federal controls remain in effect and
potentially enforceable in those states.54
Classification of Controlled Substances
The heart of the CSA is its system for classifying controlled substances, as nearly all the
obligations and penalties that the Act establishes flow from the classification system.55 Drugs

“has been the basic law pertaining to control of narcotic drugs in forty-six (46) states.”).
46 For example, Arkansas has adopted the UCSA but added a sixth schedule for “substances that are determined to be
inappropriately classified by placing them in Schedules I through V.” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-213. In addition, the
UCSA classifies marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance subject to stringent controls; however, many states
have passed laws decriminalizing some or all marijuana use. See infra “Federal and State Marijuana Regulation”; see
also Kimberly A. Houser, What Inconsistent Federal Policy Means for Marijuana Business Owners: Washington’s I-
502 and the Federal Controlled Substances Act, 50 GONZ. L. REV. 305, 308-09 (2015).
47 Braun, Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 1990, 13 CAMPBELL L. REV. at 371; see also Kreit, supra note 44 at
628.
48 Kreit, supra note 44 at 628.
49 See, e.g., United States v. Guerrero, 910 F.3d 72, 75 (2d Cir. 2018) (discussing difference in scheduling between
federal law and Arizona law); McCoy v. United States, 707 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2013) (same with respect to Connecticut
law). Benzylfentanyl and thenylfentanyl were temporarily placed under federal control in 1985, but the temporary
scheduling expired in 1986, and DEA has determined that the substances are “essentially inactive, with no evidence of
abuse potential.” DEA, Correction of Code of Federal Regulations: Removal of Temporary Listing of Benzylfentanyl
and Thenylfentanyl as Controlled Substances, 75 Fed. Reg. 37,300, 37,300 (June 29, 2010).
50 Kreit, supra note 44 at 629.
51 Id. at 628 (citing Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 2007)).
52 U.S. CONST. art. VI, cl. 2 (“the laws of the United States ... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in
every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding”).
53 See Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 29 (2005).
54 DEA and DOJ sometimes do not enforce federal controlled substances law with respect to state-legal activities that
violate the CSA. Reasons for this include the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and the existence of appropriations
riders limiting enforcement of the CSA in some circumstances. For further discussion of the relationship between state
legalization of controlled substances and the CSA, see the “Federal and State Marijuana Regulation” section.
55 For further discussion of the obligations and penalties that the Act imposes, see the “Registration Requirements” and
“Trafficking Provisions” sections.
Congressional Research Service
5

link to page 11 link to page 13 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

become subject to the CSA by being placed in one of five lists, referred to as schedules.56 Either
the administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)—an agency within the
Department of Justice (DOJ)—or Congress can place a substance in a schedule, move a
controlled substance to a different schedule, or remove a controlled substance from a schedule.57
As discussed below, scheduling decisions by Congress and DEA follow different procedures.58
Overview of Schedules
The CSA establishes five categories of controlled substances, referred to as Schedules I through
V.59 The schedule on which a controlled substance is placed determines the level of restriction
imposed on its production, distribution, and possession, as well as the penalties applicable to any
improper handling of the substance.60 As Figure 1 describes, when DEA places substances under
control by regulation, the agency assigns each controlled substance to a schedule based on its
medical utility and its potential for abuse and dependence.

56 21 U.S.C. § 812.
57 See infra “Scheduling Procedures.”
58 See id.
59 21 U.S.C. § 812.
60 See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 823 (registration requirements); id. § 829 (prescription requirements); id. §§ 841-842
(prohibitions and penalties).
Congressional Research Service
6

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

Figure 1. CSA Scheduling Criteria

Notes:
1 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1).
2 The CSA generally uses the word “marihuana” to refer to the cannabis plant and its derivatives. This report
uses the more widely accepted spelling, “marijuana,” unless quoting other sources.
3 For the ful list of substances in Schedule I, see 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11.
4 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(2).
5 The CSA distinguishes between fentanyl and non-pharmaceutical fentanyl analogues. Fentanyl and several
related medications are in Schedule II. Numerous nonprescription fentanyl-related compounds are in Schedule I.
6 For the ful list of substances in Schedule II, see 21 C.F.R. § 1308.12.
7 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(3).
8 For the ful list of substances in Schedule III, see 21 C.F.R. § 1308.13.
9 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(4).
10 For the ful list of substances in Schedule IV, see 21 C.F.R. § 1308.14
11 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(5).
12 For the ful list of substances in Schedule V, see 21 C.F.R. § 1308.15.
Congressional Research Service
7

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

A lower schedule number corresponds to greater restrictions, so controlled substances in Schedule
I are subject to the most stringent controls, while substances in Schedule V are subject to the least
stringent.61 Notably, because substances in Schedule I have no accepted medical use, it is only
legal to produce, dispense, and possess those substances in the context of federally approved
scientific studies.62
Analogues and Listed Chemicals
In addition to the controlled substances listed in Schedules I through V, the CSA also regulates
(1) controlled substance analogues and (2) listed chemicals.
Under the CSA, a controlled substance analogue is a substance that FDA has not approved and
that is not specifically scheduled under the Act, but that has (1) a chemical structure substantially
similar to that of a controlled substance in Schedule I or II or (2) an actual or intended effect that
is “substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on
the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II.”63 A substance that meets
those criteria and is intended for human consumption is treated as a controlled substance in
Schedule I.64 It may seem counterintuitive that an analogue to a Schedule II controlled substance
is treated as if it were a Schedule I controlled substance and thus is subject to more stringent
controls than the substance it mimics. However, substances in Schedules I and II may have a
similarly high potential for abuse. The key difference between those schedules is that Schedule II
controlled substances have an accepted medical use, which controlled substance analogues do not
have because they have not been approved by FDA.
Listed chemicals subject to the CSA are precursor chemicals that are generally not intended for
human consumption but can be used to produce controlled substances.65 They may be placed on
one of two lists:
 List I Chemicals—designated chemicals that, in addition to legitimate uses, are
used in manufacturing a controlled substance in violation of the CSA and are
important to the manufacture of a controlled substance.66
 List II Chemicals—designated chemicals that, in addition to legitimate uses, are
used in manufacturing a controlled substance in violation of the CSA.67
List I chemicals include substances such as ephedrine, white phosphorous, and iodine, which are
used to produce methamphetamine, as well as chemicals used to manufacture LSD, MDMA (also

61 See John Doe, Inc. v. DEA, 484 F.3d 561, 563 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
62 See 21 U.S.C. § 823(f); see also Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2004).
63 Id. § 802(32).
64 Id. § 813(a).
65 See United States v. Hofstatter, 8 F.3d 316, 321-22 (6th Cir. 1993) (in upholding convictions for possession of listed
chemicals with intent to manufacture controlled substance analogues, considering evidence that “the defendants were
attempting to manufacture substances designed for human consumption and designed to produce amphetamine-like
effects when ingested”). It is, however, possible for a substance to be both a listed chemical and a controlled substance
analogue. See 21 U.S.C. § 802(32)(B) (“The designation of gamma butyrolactone or any other chemical as a listed
chemical pursuant to paragraph (34) or (35) does not preclude a finding pursuant to subparagraph (A) of this paragraph
that the chemical is a controlled substance analogue.”); see also United States v. Fisher, 289 F.3d 1329, 1335-36 (11th
Cir. 2002) (finding that a listed chemical could be treated as a controlled substance analogue if intended for human
consumption).
66 21 C.F.R. § 1300.02(b18).
67 Id. § 1300.02(b19).
Congressional Research Service
8

link to page 27 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

known as “ecstasy” or “molly”), and other drugs.68 List II chemicals include, among others,
solvents such as acetone, hydrochloric acid, and sulfuric acid.69
Listed chemicals are subject to some controls similar to those that apply to controlled
substances.70 In addition, entities that sell listed chemicals must record the transactions, report
them to regulators, and comply with statutory limits on sales to a single purchaser.71
There are a number of differences between how controlled substance analogues and listed
chemicals are regulated. In addition, listed chemicals include only specific substances identified
for control under the CSA by statute or rulemaking.72 By contrast, controlled substance analogues
need not be individually scheduled; they need only satisfy the statutory criteria.73
Scheduling Procedures
Substances may be added to or removed from a schedule or moved to a different schedule
through agency action or by legislation.74 As described below, the procedures for modifying a
substance’s scheduling differ depending on whether Congress or DEA makes the change.
Legislative Scheduling
Perhaps the most straightforward way to change a substance’s legal status under the CSA is for
Congress to pass legislation to place a substance under control, alter its classification, or remove
it from control. The procedural requirements for administrative scheduling discussed in the next
section do not apply to legislative scheduling. This means that scheduling legislation does not
need to incorporate scientific and medical findings and is not subject to the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA).
Congress has used its legislative scheduling power to respond quickly to regulate drugs that pose
an urgent concern. For example, the Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012 permanently
added two synthetic cathinones (central nervous system stimulants) and certain cannabimimetic
substances (commonly referred to as synthetic marijuana) to Schedule I.75 More recently, in
February 2020, Congress enacted the Temporary Reauthorization and Study of the Emergency
Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act, which placed a broad class of fentanyl analogues in
Schedule I on a temporary basis.76

68 Id. § 1310.02(a).
69 Id. § 1310.02(b).
70 See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 823(h) (requiring DEA registration to distribute List I chemicals); id. § 841(c) (imposing
criminal penalties for, among other things, “possess[ing] or distribut[ing] a listed chemical knowing, or having
reasonable cause to believe, that the listed chemical will be used to manufacture a controlled substance except as
authorized by” the CSA); id. § 842(a) (imposing civil and criminal penalties for certain unauthorized retail sales of
listed chemicals).
71 Id. § 830.
72 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(34), (35).
73 See, e.g., United States v. Hofstatter, 8 F.3d 316, 321-22 (6th Cir. 1993) (upholding against Fifth Amendment
vagueness challenge the statutory criteria for controlled substance analogues).
74 See 21 U.S.C. § 811; United States v. Ways, 832 F.3d 887, 893 (8th Cir. 2016) (summarizing the addition of certain
substances to Schedule I by legislation).
75 See P.L. 112-144, 126 Stat. 1130 (2012).
76 P.L. 116-114, 134 Stat. 103 (2020). For further discussion of the Temporary Reauthorization and Study of the
Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act and related legislation, see infra “Fentanyl Analogues.”
Congressional Research Service
9

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

Administrative Scheduling
DEA makes scheduling decisions through a complex administrative process requiring
participation by other agencies and the public.77 DEA may undertake administrative scheduling
on its own initiative, at the request of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
or “on the petition of any interested party.”78 With regard to the last route for initiating
administrative scheduling, the DEA Administrator may deny a petition to begin scheduling
proceedings based on a finding that “the grounds upon which the petitioner relies are not
sufficient to justify the initiation of proceedings.”79 Denial of a petition to initiate scheduling
proceedings is subject to judicial review, but a court may overturn a denial only if it determines
that the denial is arbitrary and capricious.80
Before initiating rulemaking proceedings, DEA must request a scientific and medical evaluation
of the substance at issue from the Secretary of HHS.81 The HHS Secretary has delegated the
authority to prepare the scientific and medical evaluation to FDA.82 In preparing the evaluation,
FDA considers a number of factors, including the substance’s potential for abuse and dependence,
scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, the state of current scientific knowledge
regarding the substance, any risk the substance poses to the public health, and whether the
substance is an immediate precursor of an existing controlled substance.83 Based on those factors,
FDA makes a recommendation as to whether the substance should be controlled and, if so, in
which schedule it should be placed.84 FDA’s scientific and medical findings are binding on
DEA.85 Furthermore, if FDA recommends against controlling a substance, DEA may not schedule
it.86
Upon receipt of FDA’s report, the DEA Administrator evaluates all of the relevant data and
determines whether the substance should be scheduled, rescheduled, or removed from control.87
Before placing a substance on a schedule, the DEA Administrator must make specific findings
that the substance meets the applicable criteria related to accepted medical use and potential for
abuse and dependence.88 DEA scheduling decisions are subject to notice-and-comment
rulemaking under the APA,89 meaning that interested parties must have the opportunity to submit
comments on the DEA Administrator’s decision before it becomes final.90

77 The CSA grants the Attorney General the authority to administer its provisions. See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 811. The
Attorney General has delegated that authority to the DEA Administrator. See 28 C.F.R. § 0.100(b).
78 21 U.S.C. § 811(a).
79 21 C.F.R. § 1308.43.
80 See Ams. for Safe Access v. DEA, 706 F.3d 438, 440 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
81 21 U.S.C. § 811(b).
82 See, e.g., DEA, Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of Solriamfetol in Schedule IV, 84 Fed. Reg. 27,943,
27,944 (June 17, 2019).
83 See 21 U.S.C. §§ 811(c)(1)-(8) (full list of factors FDA and DEA must consider in making scheduling decisions).
84 Id. § 811(b).
85 Id.
86 Id.
87 Id. Like FDA, the DEA Administrator is required to consider all the factors in 21 U.S.C. §§ 811(c)(1)-(8) in making
this determination.
88 Id. § 812(b).
89 5 U.S.C. § 500, et seq.
90 21 U.S.C. § 811(a); see also Touby v. United States, 500 U.S. 160, 162-63 (1991).
Congressional Research Service
10

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

The DEA Administrator’s decision whether to schedule, reschedule, or deschedule a substance
through the ordinary administrative process is subject to judicial review.91 Such review is
generally deferential: courts accept DEA’s interpretation of the CSA as long as the interpretation
of ambiguous statutory text is reasonable,92 and the CSA provides that the DEA Administrator’s
findings of fact are “conclusive” on judicial review if the findings are supported by substantial
evidence.93 Overall, courts set aside DEA action “only if it is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’”94
Emergency Scheduling
Ordinary DEA scheduling decisions made through notice-and-comment rulemaking can take
years to consider and finalize.95 Recognizing that in some cases faster scheduling may be
appropriate, Congress amended the CSA through the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 198496
to allow the DEA Administrator to place a substance in Schedule I temporarily when “necessary
to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.”97 Before issuing a temporary scheduling order,
the DEA Administrator must provide 30 days’ notice to the public and the Secretary of HHS
stating the basis for temporary scheduling.98 In issuing a temporary scheduling order, the DEA
Administrator must consider only a subset of the factors relevant to permanent scheduling: the
history and current pattern of abuse of the substance at issue; the scope, duration, and significance
of abuse; and the risk to the public health.99 The DEA Administrator must also consider any
comments from the Secretary of HHS.100
Pursuant to amendments in the Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012,101 a substance may
be temporarily scheduled for up to two years; if permanent scheduling proceedings are pending,
the DEA Administrator may extend the temporary scheduling period for up to one additional
year.102 If DEA completes the permanent scheduling process for a substance while a temporary
scheduling order is in effect, the temporary scheduling order is vacated.103 The CSA provides that
emergency scheduling orders are not subject to judicial review.104

91 See id. § 877.
92 See All. for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936, 939 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (citing Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-45 (1984)).
93 21 U.S.C. § 877.
94 See, e.g., Ams. for Safe Access v. DEA, 706 F.3d 438, 449 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)).
95 See, e.g., Washington v. Barr, 925 F.3d 109, 120 (2d Cir. 2019) (“Plaintiffs document that the average delay in
deciding petitions to reclassify drugs under the CSA is approximately nine years.”).
96 P.L. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1976 (1984).
97 21 U.S.C. § 811(h)(1).
98 21 U.S.C. § 811(h)(1).
99 Id. § 811(h)(3).
100 Id. § 811(h)(4).
101 P.L. 112-144, 126 Stat. 993 (2012).
102 21 U.S.C. § 811(h)(2). As originally enacted, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 authorized temporary
scheduling for up to one year, with a possible extension for up to six months if permanent scheduling proceedings were
pending. See 98 Stat. 2072.
103 Id. § 811(h)(5).
104 Id. § 811(h)(6).
Congressional Research Service
11

link to page 27 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

DEA has recently used its emergency scheduling power to temporarily control a large class of
analogues to the opioid fentanyl,105 other synthetic opioids,106 and several synthetic
cannabinoids.107
International Treaty Obligations
The CSA outlines procedures for scheduling controlled substances based on the United States’
treaty obligations. The United States is a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of
1961, which was designed to establish controls on the international and domestic traffic in
narcotics, coca leaf, cocaine, and marijuana.108 The treaty requires signatories, among other
things, to criminalize any “cultivation, production, manufacture, extraction, preparation,
possession, offering, offering for sale, distribution, purchase, sale, ... importation and exportation
of drugs” that are subject to the Convention, except to the extent the Convention authorizes such
activities.109
The United States is also party to the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971, which was
designed to establish similar control over stimulants, depressants, and hallucinogens.110 The
Convention on Psychotropic Substances requires parties to adopt various controls applicable to
controlled substances, including mandating licenses for manufacture and distribution, requiring
prescriptions for dispensing such substances, and adopting measures “for the repression of acts
contrary to laws or regulations” adopted pursuant to treaty obligations.111
If existing controls of a drug are less stringent than those required by the United States’ treaty
obligations, the CSA directs the DEA Administrator to “issue an order controlling such drug
under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations.”112 Scheduling
pursuant to international treaty obligations does not require the factual findings that are necessary
for other administrative scheduling actions, and may be implemented without regard to the
procedures outlined for regular administrative scheduling.113
Registration Requirements
Once a substance is brought within the scope of the CSA through one of the scheduling processes
discussed above, almost any person or organization that handles that substance, except for the end

105 See DEA, Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of Fentanyl-Related Substances in Schedule I,
83 Fed. Reg. 5188 (Feb. 6, 2018); see also infra “Fentanyl Analogues.”
106 See DEA, Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of Butonitazene, Etodesnitazene, Flunitazene,
Metodesnitazene, Metonitazene, N-Pyrrolidino etonitazene, and Protonitazene in Schedule I, 87 Fed. Reg. 21,556 (Apr.
12, 2022).
107 See DEA, Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of 5F-EDMBPINACA, 5F-MDMB-PICA,
FUB-AKB48, 5F-CUMYL-PINACA, and FUB-144 into Schedule I, 84 Fed. Reg. 15,505 (Apr. 16, 2019).
108 See United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, Mar. 30, 1961, 18 U.S.T. 1407, preamble (stating
the parties’ desire “to conclude a generally acceptable international convention replacing existing treaties on narcotic
drugs, limiting such drugs to medical and scientific use”).
109 Id. art. 36.
110 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances, Feb. 21, 1971, 32 U.S.T. 543.
111 Id. art. 2(1)(7).
112 21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(1).
113 Id.
Congressional Research Service
12

link to page 18 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

user, becomes subject to a comprehensive system of regulatory requirements.114 The goal of the
regulatory scheme is to create a “closed system” of distribution in which only authorized handlers
may distribute controlled substances.115 Central to the closed system of distribution is the
requirement that individuals or entities that work with controlled substances register with DEA.
Those covered entities, which include manufacturers, distributors, practitioners, and
pharmacists,116 are referred to as registrants.117 DEA has described the movement of a
pharmaceutical controlled substance from the manufacturer to the patient as follows:
[A] controlled substance, after being manufactured by a DEA-registered manufacturer,
may be transferred to a DEA-registered distributor for subsequent distribution to a DEA-
registered retail pharmacy. After a DEA-registered practitioner, such as a physician or a
dentist, issues a prescription for a controlled substance to a patient ... , that patient can fill
that prescription at a retail pharmacy to obtain that controlled substance. In this system, the
manufacturer, the distributor, the practitioner, and the retail pharmacy are all required to
be DEA registrants, or to be exempted from the requirement of registration, to participate
in the process.118
As discussed further below, registrants must maintain records of transactions involving controlled
substances, establish security measures to prevent theft of such substances, and monitor for
suspicious orders to prevent misuse and diversion.119 Thus, the registration system aims to ensure
that any controlled substance is always accounted for and under the control of a DEA-registered
person until it reaches a patient or is destroyed.120
Entities Required to Register
Under the CSA, every person who produces, distributes, or dispenses any controlled substance, or
who proposes to engage in any of those activities, must register with DEA, unless an exemption
applies.121 The CSA exempts from registration individual consumers of controlled substances,
such as patients and their family members, whom the Act refers to as “ultimate users.”122 Ultimate
users and other entities exempt from the CSA’s registration provisions can still violate the Act’s
criminal trafficking provisions if they engage in unauthorized activities.123

114 See id. § 822.
115 DEA, Electronic Prescriptions for Controlled Substances, 75 Fed. Reg. 16,235, 16,237 (Mar. 31, 2010).
116 21 U.S.C. § 822(a).
117 21 C.F.R. § 1300.02(b)(24).
118 DEA, Disposal of Controlled Substances by Persons Not Registered With the Drug Enforcement Administration, 74
Fed. Reg. 3480, 3481 (Jan. 21, 2009).
119 See infra “Obligations of Registrants.”
120 See DEA, Definition and Registration of Reverse Distributors, 70 Fed. Reg. 22,591, 22,591 (May 2, 2005).
121 21 U.S.C. § 822; 21 C.F.R. Part 1301. See also 21 U.S.C. § 957 (provision of the Controlled Substances Import and
Export Act imposing registration requirements for importers and exporters of controlled substances).
122 21 U.S.C. § 822(c)(3). See also id. § 802(25) (defining “ultimate user” as a “person who has lawfully obtained, and
who possesses, a controlled substance for his own use or for the use of a member of his household or for an animal
owned by him or by a member of his household”). DEA has explained that ultimate users need not register because the
controlled substances in their possession “are no longer part of the closed system of distribution and are no longer
subject to DEA’s system of corresponding accountability.” DEA, Definition and Registration of Reverse Distributors,
68 Fed. Reg. 41,222, 41,226 (proposed July 11, 2003). Some other exemptions are specified by statute, see 21 U.S.C.
§§ 822(c)(1), (2); or by regulation, see 21 C.F.R. §§ 1301.22-24.
123 Cf. United States v. Mancuso, 718 F.3d 780, 798 (9th Cir. 2013) (rejecting an argument that defendant was “merely
‘an ultimate user’” of cocaine because he shared the drug with others, and sharing drugs constitutes “distribution” for
Congressional Research Service
13

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

Manufacturers and distributors of controlled substances, such as pharmaceutical companies, must
register with DEA annually.124 By contrast, entities that dispense controlled substances, such as
hospitals, pharmacies, and individual medical practitioners and pharmacists, may obtain
registrations lasting between one and three years.125 Registrations specify the extent to which
registrants may manufacture, possess, distribute, or dispense controlled substances, and each
registrant may engage only in the specific activities covered by its registration. In some instances,
applicants must obtain more than one registration to comply with the CSA. For example, separate
registrations are required for each principal place of business where controlled substances are
manufactured, distributed, imported, exported, or dispensed.126 Special registration is required for
certain activities, including operating an opioid treatment program such as a methadone clinic.127
The CSA directs the DEA Administrator to issue a registration if it would be consistent with the
public interest, and the Act outlines the criteria the DEA Administrator must consider when
evaluating the public interest.128 The criteria vary depending on (1) whether the applicant is a
manufacturer, distributor, researcher, or practitioner and (2) the classification of the controlled
substance(s) that are the focus of the application. However, the requirements generally serve to
help DEA determine whether the applicant has demonstrated the capacity to maintain effective
controls against diversion and comply with applicable laws.129
The registration of an individual or organization expires at the end of the registration period
unless it is renewed.130 Registration also ends when the registrant dies, ceases legal existence, or
discontinues business or professional practice.131 A registration cannot be transferred to someone
else without the express, written consent of the DEA Administrator.132
Obligations of Registrants
Recordkeeping and Reporting
The CSA and its implementing regulations impose multiple recordkeeping and reporting
requirements on registrants. Registrants must undertake a biennial inventory of all stocks of
controlled substances they have on hand and maintain records of each controlled substance they
manufacture, receive, sell, deliver, or otherwise dispose of.133 In addition, a controlled substance
in Schedule I or II may be distributed only pursuant to a written order from the recipient of the

purposes of the CSA’s trafficking provisions, “even if there is no commercial scheme involved”).
124 21 U.S.C. § 822(a)(2).
125 Id. § 822(a)(1).
126 Id. § 822(e)(1).
127 Id. § 823(g); see also CRS In Focus IF10219, Opioid Treatment Programs and Related Federal Regulations, by
Johnathan H. Duff.
128 Id. § 823(a)-(f).
129 Id.
130 21 C.F.R. §§ 1301.13(c), (d).
131 Id. § 1301.52.
132 Id. § 1301.52(b).
133 21 U.S.C. § 827; 21 C.F.R. Part 1304.
Congressional Research Service
14

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

substance.134 Copies of each order form must be transmitted to DEA.135 Records of orders must be
preserved for two years and made available for government review upon request.136
Registrants are also required to “design and operate a system to identify suspicious orders” and to
notify DEA of any suspicious orders they detect.137 DEA regulations provide that “[s]uspicious
orders include orders of unusual size, orders deviating substantially from a normal pattern, and
orders of unusual frequency.”138 That list is not exhaustive, however—courts have suggested that
orders may be suspicious if, for example, a pharmacy mostly sells controlled substances rather
than a more typical mix of controlled and non-controlled medications, many customers pay for
controlled substances with cash, or pharmacies purchase drugs at a price higher than insurance
would reimburse.139
Inspections
The CSA permits the DEA Administrator to inspect the establishment of any registrant or
applicant for registration.140 DEA regulations express the agency’s intent “to inspect all
manufacturers of controlled substances listed in Schedules I and II and distributors of controlled
substances listed in Schedule I once each year,” and other manufacturers and distributors of
controlled substances “as circumstances may require.”141 Absent the consent of the registrant or
special circumstances such as an imminent danger to health or safety, a warrant is required for
inspection.142 “Any judge of the United States or of a State court of record, or any United States
magistrate judge” may issue such a warrant “within his territorial jurisdiction.”143 Issuance of a
warrant requires probable cause.144 The CSA defines probable cause as “a valid public interest in
the effective enforcement of this subchapter or regulations thereunder sufficient to justify” the
inspection at issue.145
Security
The CSA’s implementing regulations require all registrants to “provide effective controls and
procedures to guard against theft and diversion of controlled substances.”146 The regulations
establish specific physical security requirements, which vary depending on the type of registrant
and the classification of the controlled substance at issue.147 For example, practitioners148 subject

134 21 U.S.C. § 828; 21 C.F.R. Part 1305.
135 21 U.S.C. § 828(c)(2).
136 Id. § 828(c)(1).
137 Id. § 832.
138 21 C.F.R. § 1304.74(b).
139 See Masters Pharmas. Inc. v. DEA, 861 F.3d 206, 220 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
140 21 U.S.C. § 822(f).
141 21 C.F.R. §1316.13.
142 21 U.S.C. § 880(c).
143 Id. § 880(d)(1).
144 Id.
145 Id. The CSA’s definition of probable cause is conceptually distinct from what is required under the Fourth
Amendment. See United States v. Schiffman, 572 F.2d 1137, 1139-40 (5th Cir. 1978).
146 21 C.F.R. § 1301.71.
147 Id. §§ 1301.72-76.
148 The CSA defines “practitioner” to include any “physician, dentist, veterinarian, scientific investigator, pharmacy,
hospital, or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by the United States or the jurisdiction in which
Congressional Research Service
15

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

to CSA registration must store controlled substances “in a securely locked, substantially
constructed cabinet.”149 In addition to those physical security requirements, practitioners may not
“employ, as an agent or employee who has access to controlled substances” any person who has
been convicted of a felony related to controlled substances, had an application for CSA
registration denied, had a CSA registration revoked, or surrendered a CSA registration for
cause.150 Registered non-practitioners must store controlled substances in Schedules I and II in a
safe, steel cabinet, or vault that meets certain specifications.151 Non-practitioners must further
ensure that controlled substance storage areas are “accessible only to an absolute minimum
number of specifically authorized employees.”152
Quotas
To prevent the production of excess amounts of controlled substances, which may increase the
likelihood of diversion, the CSA directs DEA to set aggregate production quotas for controlled
substances in Schedules I and II and for ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and
phenylpropanolamine.153 The DEA Administrator is also required to set individual quotas for each
registered manufacturer seeking to produce such substances and to limit or reduce individual
quotas as necessary to prevent oversupply.154 With respect to certain opioid medications, the Act
further directs the DEA Administrator to estimate the amount of diversion of each opioid and
reduce quotas to account for such diversion.155 DEA sets production quotas annually and can
adjust the quotas for a calendar year based on changes in demand.156
Relatedly, the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act allows the importation of certain
controlled substances and listed chemicals only in amounts the DEA Administrator determines to
be “necessary to provide for the medical, scientific, or other legitimate needs of the United
States.”157

he practices or does research, to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, administer, or use in teaching or
chemical analysis, a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research.” 21 U.S.C. § 802(21). The
Act and its implementing regulations do not define the term “non-practitioner,” but it appears to include registrants not
engaged in the practice of medicine, such as manufacturers and distributors.
149 21 C.F.R. §§ 1301.75(a), (b).
150 Id. § 1301.76(a).
151 21 C.F.R. § 1301.72(a).
152 Id. § 1301.72(d).
153 21 U.S.C. § 826(a); see also 21 C.F.R. § 1303.11. Ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine are List I
chemicals that may be used in the manufacture of controlled substances such as methamphetamine or amphetamine.
See DEA, Listed Chemicals Regulated Under the Controlled Substances Act (Dec. 20, 2021),
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/orangebook/j_chemlist_regulated.pdf.
154 Id. §§ 826(b), (c).
155 Id. § 826(i).
156 See 21 C.F.R. § 1303.13. See also, e.g., DEA, Established Aggregate Production Quotas for Schedule I and II
Controlled Substances and Assessment of Annual Needs for the List I Chemicals Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and
Phenylpropanolamine for 2020, 84 Fed. Reg. 66,014, (Dec. 2, 2019) (setting aggregate production quotas for 2020);
DEA, Adjustments to Aggregate Production Quotas for Certain Schedule II Controlled Substances and Assessment of
Annual Needs for the List I Chemicals Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine for 2020, in Response to the Coronavirus
Disease 2019 Public Health Emergency, 85 Fed. Reg. 20,302 (Apr. 10, 2020) (adjusting aggregate production quotas
for 2020 to meet increased need due to the COVID-19 pandemic).
157 21 U.S.C. § 952. The Controlled Substances Import and Export Act also imposes controls on the exportation of
controlled substances, but does not establish specific export quotas. See id. § 953.
Congressional Research Service
16

link to page 22 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

Prescriptions
Under the CSA, controlled substances in Schedules II through IV must be provided directly to an
ultimate user by a medical practitioner or dispensed pursuant to a prescription.158 The Act does
not mandate that Schedule V substances be distributed by prescription, but such substances may
be dispensed only “for a medical purpose.”159 As a practical matter, Schedule V substances are
usually dispensed pursuant to a prescription due to separate requirements under the FD&C Act or
state law.160
Enforcement and Penalties
DEA is the federal agency primarily responsible for enforcing the CSA’s registration
requirements.161 DEA may take formal or informal administrative action to enforce the
registration requirements, including issuing warning letters, suspending or revoking an entity’s
registration, and imposing fines.162
The DEA Administrator may suspend or revoke a registration (or deny an application for
registration) on several bases, including findings that a registrant or applicant has falsified
application materials, been convicted of certain felonies, or “committed such acts as would render
his registration ... inconsistent with the public interest.”163 Unless the DEA Administrator finds
that there is an imminent danger to the public health or safety, the DEA Administrator must
provide the applicant or registrant with notice, the opportunity for a hearing, and the opportunity
to submit a corrective plan before denying, suspending, or revoking a registration.164 Imminent
danger exists when, due to the failure of the registrant to comply with the registration
requirements, “there is a substantial likelihood of an immediate threat that death, serious bodily
harm, or abuse of a controlled substance will occur in the absence of an immediate suspension of
the registration.”165 To illustrate, those conditions may be satisfied when a practitioner prescribes

158 Id. §§ 829(a), (b). Substances in Schedule I may not be dispensed by prescription because they have no accepted
medical use.
159 Id. § 829(c).
160 Cf., e.g., Ga. Code Ann. § 16-13-29.2 (permitting the State Board of Pharmacy to allow the sale of Schedule V
controlled substances without a prescription); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 893.08 (permitting the sale of Schedule V controlled
substances over-the-counter by a registered pharmacist, if a prescription is not required under the FD&C Act).
161 See 28 C.F.R. § 0.100(b) (delegating to the Administrator of DEA functions that relate to, arise from, or supplement
investigations of matters concerning drugs under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970).
162 See 21 U.S.C. §§ 822(f), 824(a), 842(c), 842(d). A person who must register under the CSA but fails to do so is
subject to prosecution under the Act’s general trafficking provisions. See United States v. Blanton, 730 F.2d 1425,
1429-30 (11th Cir. 1984); see also infra “Trafficking Provisions.”
163 21 U.S.C. § 824(a).
164 Id. §§ 824(c), (d). Enforcement actions based on imminent danger are not subject to these requirements, but DEA
provides an administrative review process for any denial, suspension, or revocation of registration, and a registrant may
seek judicial review of the agency’s final decision under the APA. See, e.g., Volkman v. DEA, 567 F. 3d 215, 219 (6th
Cir. 2006).
165 21 U.S.C. § 824(d)(2). Congress added the opportunity to submit a corrective plan and the standard for determining
whether an imminent danger to the public health or safety exists through the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective
Drug Enforcement Act of 2016, P.L. 114-145, 130 Stat. 354 (2016). Those amendments made it more difficult for DEA
to issue immediate suspensions. Previously, the Act simply provided that “[t]he Attorney General [through the DEA
Administrator] may, in his discretion, suspend any registration simultaneously with the institution of proceedings under
this section, in cases where he finds that there is an imminent danger to the public health or safety.” 21 U.S.C. § 824(d)
(2000). As amended, the Act limits DEA’s discretion by requiring a specific finding of “imminent threat [of] death,
serious bodily harm, or abuse of a controlled substance.” 21 U.S.C. § 824(d)(2); see also Scott Higham & Lenny
Congressional Research Service
17

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice without a legitimate
medical purpose in violation of state and federal controlled substances laws.166
A violation of the CSA’s registration requirements—including failure to maintain records or
detect and report suspicious orders, noncompliance with security requirements, or dispensing
controlled substances without the necessary prescriptions—generally does not constitute a
criminal offense unless the violation is committed knowingly.167 However, in the event of a
knowing violation, DOJ may bring criminal charges against both individual and corporate
registrants. Potential penalties vary depending on the offense. For example, a first criminal
violation of the registration requirements by an individual is punishable by a fine or up to a year
in prison.168 If “a registered manufacturer or distributor of opioids” commits knowing violations
such as failing to report suspicious orders for opioids or maintain effective controls against
diversion of opioids, the registrant may be punished by a fine of up to $500,000 for each
registration violation.169
Trafficking Provisions
In addition to the registration requirements outlined above, the CSA contains provisions that
define offenses involving the production, distribution, and possession of controlled substances
outside the legitimate confines of the registration system—what this report refers to as the Act’s
trafficking provisions.170 Although the word “trafficking” may primarily call to mind the illegal
distribution of recreational drugs, the CSA’s trafficking provisions in fact apply to a wide range
of illicit activities involving either pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical controlled
substances.171
Prohibitions
Key sections of the CSA’s trafficking provisions make the following activities illegal, unless
otherwise authorized under the Act:
 Manufacture of a controlled substance,172 which includes the synthesis of a
controlled substance that is a chemical, the cultivation of a controlled substance
that is a plant, or the processing or packaging of a controlled substance;173

Bernstein, The Drug Industry’s Triumph over the DEA, WASH. POST, Oct. 15, 2017.
166 See Akhtar-Zaidi v. DEA, 841 F.3d 707, 710 (6th Cir. 2016). The court in Akhtar-Zaidi found that a physician
violated federal and state law “by (1) prescribing medication without patients’ addresses, (2) overstating the nature and
extent of examinations conducted and pain levels reported by patients, and (3) failing to comply with state requirements
relating to the treatment of chronic pain,” and thus “created a substantial likelihood that abuse of controlled substances
would occur in the absence of an immediate suspension.” Id. at 710, 713.
167 21 U.S.C. § 842(c)(1).
168 Id. § 842(c)(2)(A).
169 Id. § 842(c)(2)(D).
170 See id. §§ 841-865.
171 See, e.g., id. §§ 841, 844 (criminalizing the manufacture, distribution, and possession of “a controlled substance,”
except as authorized by the CSA).
172 Id. § 841(a)(1).
173 Id. §§ 802(15) (“‘manufacture’ means the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing of a
drug or other substance, either directly or indirectly or by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently
by means of chemical synthesis or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, and includes any packaging
or repackaging of such substance or labeling or relabeling of its container”); 802(22) (“‘production’ includes the
Congressional Research Service
18

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

 Distribution or dispensing of a controlled substance;174
 Possession of a controlled substance with or without intent to distribute.175
Penalties for the foregoing offenses vary based on the type and amount of the controlled
substance in question.176 Other sections of the CSA define more specific offenses, such as
distributing controlled substances at truck stops or rest areas,177 at schools,178 or to people under
age 21;179 endangering human life while manufacturing a controlled substance;180 selling drug
paraphernalia;181 and engaging in a “continuing criminal enterprise”—that is, an ongoing drug
dealing operation that involves at least five other people and provides the defendant with
substantial income or resources.182 An attempt or conspiracy to commit any offense defined under
the Act also constitutes a crime.183
Enforcement and Penalties
DOJ enforces the CSA’s trafficking provisions by bringing criminal charges against alleged
violators.184 Notably, the CSA’s registration system and its trafficking regime are not mutually
exclusive, and participation in the registration system does not insulate registrants from the
statute’s trafficking penalties. In the 1975 case United States v. Moore, the Supreme Court
rejected a claim that the CSA “must be interpreted in light of a congressional intent to set up two
separate and distinct penalty systems,” one for registrants and one for persons not registered
under the Act.185 The Court in Moore held that physicians registered under the CSA can be
prosecuted under the Act’s general drug trafficking provisions “when their activities fall outside
the usual course of professional practice.”186
Numerous judicial opinions provide guidance on what sorts of conduct fall outside the usual
course of professional practice. The defendant in Moore was a registered doctor who distributed
large amounts of methadone with inadequate patient exams and no precautions against misuse or
diversion. The Court held that “[t]he evidence presented at trial was sufficient for the jury to find
that respondent’s conduct exceeded the bounds of ‘professional practice’” because, “[i]n practical

manufacture, planting, cultivation, growing, or harvesting of a controlled substance”).
174 Id. § 841(a)(1). “Dispensing” refers to delivery of a controlled substance by a registered practitioner, including
prescribing or administering a pharmaceutical controlled substance, while “distribution” refers to other delivery of a
controlled substance. Id. §§ 802(10), 802(11).
175 Id. §§ 841(a)(1) (criminalizing possession with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance,
except as authorized under the Act); id. § 844(a) (making it unlawful “knowingly or intentionally to possess a
controlled substance,” unless the substance was obtained in a manner authorized by the CSA).
176 See, e.g., id. §§ 841(b).
177 Id. § 849.
178 Id. § 860.
179 Id. § 859.
180 Id. § 858.
181 Id. § 863.
182 Id. § 848.
183 Id. § 846.
184 Trafficking that involves smuggling may also implicate the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act, 21 U.S.C.
§§ 951-971, and/or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 70501-70508.
185 423 U.S. 122, 133 (1975).
186 Id. at 124.
Congressional Research Service
19

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

effect, he acted as a large-scale ‘pusher’—not as a physician.”187 Appellate courts have relied on
Moore to uphold convictions of a pharmacist who signed thousands of prescriptions for sale
through an online pharmacy188 and a practitioner who “freely distributed prescriptions for large
amounts of controlled substances that are highly addictive, difficult to obtain, and sought after for
nonmedical purposes.”189 However, several courts cautioned that a conviction under Moore
requires more than a showing of mere professional malpractice. For instance, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) has held that the prosecution must prove that the
defendant “acted with intent to distribute the drugs and with intent to distribute them outside the
course of professional practice,” suggesting that specific intent must be established with respect
to the defendant’s failure to abide by professional norms.190
In the 2022 case Ruan v. United States, the Supreme Court clarified the mental state required to
convict a medical practitioner for violation of the CSA’s trafficking provisions.191 The Court held
that, “[a]fter a defendant produces evidence that he or she was authorized to dispense controlled
substances”—that is, that he or she was registered to do so under the CSA—“the Government
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that he or she was acting in an
unauthorized manner, or intended to do so.”192 This means that the government must show that a
CSA registrant knowingly or intentionally dispensed a controlled substance not for a legitimate
medical purpose or in a manner that was not in the usual course of professional practice.193
For decades, DOJ has brought criminal trafficking charges against doctors and pharmacists who
dispensed pharmaceutical controlled substances outside the usual course of professional
practice.194 In April 2019, DOJ for the first time brought criminal trafficking charges against a
pharmaceutical company—Rochester Drug Cooperative—and two of its executives based on the
company’s sale of the opioids oxycodone and fentanyl to pharmacies that illegally distributed the
drugs.195 Similarly, in July 2019, a federal grand jury indicted two former executives at the

187 Id. at 142-43.
188 See United States v. Nelson, 383 F.3d 1227, 1230 (10th Cir. 2004).
189 United States v. McIver, 470 F.3d 550, 564 (4th Cir. 2006).
190 United States v. Feingold, 454 F.3d 1001, 1008 (9th Cir. 2006) (emphasis in original); see also United States v.
Armstrong, 550 F.3d 382, 401 (5th Cir. 2008) (explaining that “the mens rea of a § 841 offense is encompassed in the
second and third element of the crime—whether the practitioner intentionally dispensed controlled substances without a
legitimate medical purpose or outside the scope of professional practice,” and distinguishing “a § 841 prosecution from
a mere civil malpractice suit where a plaintiff may prevail regardless of a defendant doctor’s good faith intent to act
within the scope of medical practice”); United States v. Schneider, 704 F.3d 1287, 1295 (10th Cir. 2013) (approving
jury instructions “nearly identical” to those upheld in Feingold and holding that “the jury, on the instructions given,
found that [the defendant] knowingly acted not for a legitimate medical purpose or not within the usual course of
professional practice”).
191 142 S. Ct. 2370 (2022).
192 Id. at 2375.
193 Id. at 2382.
194 See, e.g., Moore, 423 U.S. 122; Press Release, DEA, Multiple Cases Lead to Arrests of Five Doctors, One
Pharmacist, One Nurse Practitioner and Three Others (Oct. 11, 2018), https://www.dea.gov/press-
releases/2018/10/11/multiple-cases-lead-arrests-five-doctors-one-pharmacist-one-nurse; Press Release, DEA, DEA
Large-scale Operation Targets 26 Pharmacies In Three States In Attack Against Illicit Opioid Abuse And Trafficking
(Dec. 5, 2017), https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2017/12/05/dea-large-scale-operation-targets-26-pharmacies-three-
states-attack.
195 See Press Release, DOJ, Manhattan U.S. Attorney And DEA Announce Charges Against Rochester Drug Co-
Operative And Two Executives For Unlawfully Distributing Controlled Substances (Apr. 23, 2019),
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/manhattan-us-attorney-and-dea-announce-charges-against-rochester-drug-co-
operative-and; see also CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10307, Corporate Drug Trafficking Liability—a New Legal Front in
the Opioid Crisis, by Joanna R. Lampe. In 2022, a federal jury convicted the company’s former CEO of conspiring to
Congressional Research Service
20

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

pharmaceutical distributor Miami-Luken, Inc., among others, for conspiracy to violate the CSA’s
trafficking provisions.196
Violations of the CSA’s trafficking provisions are criminal offenses that may give rise to large
fines and significant prison time. Penalties vary according to the offense and may further vary
based on the type and amount of the controlled substance at issue. Unauthorized simple
possession of a controlled substance may prompt a minimum fine of $1,000 and a term of up to a
year in prison.197 Distribution of large quantities of certain drugs—including specific Schedule I
controlled substances such as heroin and LSD and specific Schedule II controlled substances such
as cocaine and methamphetamine—carries a prison sentence of 10 years to life and a fine of up to
$10 million for an individual or a fine of up to $50 million for an organization.198 Penalties
increase for second or subsequent offenses, or if death or serious bodily injury results from the
use of the controlled substance.199 Compared with the civil penalties available for violations of
the CSA’s registration provisions, the Act’s criminal trafficking provisions generally entail
greater potential liability—particularly for individual defendants—but also require prosecutors to
show that a violation was intentional.200
The CSA is not the only means to target misconduct related to the distribution of pharmaceutical
and non-pharmaceutical controlled substances. Rather, such conduct can give rise to liability
under numerous other provisions of federal and state law. For example, drug companies may face
administrative sanctions or criminal charges under the FD&C Act.201 Companies and individuals
may also be subject to federal criminal charges under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act202 or the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute.203 Those statutes notably formed part
of the basis for the significant settlement between DOJ and opioid manufacturer Purdue Pharma
in 2020.204 And manufacturers and distributors of opioids currently face numerous civil suits

distribute unlawfully oxycodone and fentanyl and conspiring to defraud DEA. Press Release, DOJ, Laurence Doud,
Former CEO Of Pharmaceutical Distributor, Convicted Of Conspiring To Distribute Controlled Substances And
Defrauding The DEA (Feb. 2, 2022), https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/laurence-doud-former-ceo-pharmaceutical-
distributor-convicted-conspiring-distribute.
196 See Indictment, United States v. Rattini, No. 19-cr-00081 (S.D. Ohio July 17, 2019). DOJ dropped the charges
against Miami-Luken and its executives following the Supreme Court’s decision in Ruan. See Order Granting Mot.
Dismiss, United States v. Rattini, No. 19-cr-00081 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 11, 2022).
197 21 U.S.C. § 844(a).
198 Id. § 841(b)(1)(A).
199 Id. § 841(b).
200 A civil violation of the CSA’s recordkeeping and reporting requirements requires only a showing of negligence. See
21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(5). A violation of Section 842 may be a crime punishable by a fine and not more than a year in
prison if “prosecuted by an information or indictment which alleges that the violation was committed knowingly and
the trier of fact specifically finds that the violation was so committed.” Id. § 842(c)(2)(A). A violation of the CSA’s
trafficking provisions must be committed “knowingly or intentionally,” with corporations subject to liability “based on
the ‘knowledge and intent’ of their employees.” United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 566 F.3d 1095, 1118 (D.C.
Cir. 2009); see also 21 U.S.C. § 841.
201 See, e.g., id. § 333; see also CRS Report R43609, Enforcement of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: Select Legal
Issues, by Jennifer A. Staman.
202 See, e.g., Press Release, DOJ, Founder and Owner of Pharmaceutical Company Insys Arrested and Charged with
Racketeering (Oct. 26, 2017); Gabrielle Emmanuel and Katie Thomas, Opioid Company Executives Convicted of
Racketeering, N.Y. TIMES, May 3, 2019, at B1.
203 See, e.g., Press Release, DOJ, Justice Department Announces Global Resolution of Criminal and Civil
Investigations with Opioid Manufacturer Purdue Pharma and Civil Settlement with Members of the Sackler Family
(Oct. 21, 2020).
204 Purdue Pharma LP pled guilty to violating the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute and conspiracy to defraud the United
Congressional Research Service
21

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

under federal and state law based on the companies’ marketing and distribution of prescription
opioids.205
Legal Considerations for the 118th Congress
Drug regulation has received significant attention from Congress in recent years. The opioid
epidemic and various federal, state, and local efforts to respond to the crisis have raised a number
of legal and policy questions, including how to regulate synthetic opioids related to fentanyl and
whether supervised injection sites should be allowed under the CSA. In addition, policymakers
have confronted a growing divergence between the status of marijuana under state and federal
law, considered whether and how to facilitate clinical research involving Schedule I controlled
substances, proposed legislation that would expand access to controlled substances via
telemedicine, and debated reforms to criminal sentences for controlled substance offenses
involving cocaine. The remainder of this report focuses on these and other particular topics that
may be of interest to the 118th Congress.
Opioid Epidemic
One salient current issue in the realm of controlled substance regulation is the opioid epidemic.206
Opioids are drugs derived from the opium poppy or emulating the effects of opium-derived
drugs.207 Some opioids have legitimate medical purposes, primarily related to pain management,
while others have no recognized medical use.208 Both pharmaceutical opioids (such as
oxycodone, codeine, and morphine) and non-pharmaceutical opioids (such as heroin) may pose a
risk of abuse and dependence and may be dangerous or even deadly in certain doses.209 The CDC
reports that overdoses involving opioids claimed over 80,800 lives in 2021.210 CDC researchers
further estimate that the costs of opioid use disorder and fatal opioid overdoses exceeded $1
trillion in 2017.211
In recent years, the opioid crisis has prompted various legislative proposals aiming to prevent the
illicit distribution of opioids; curb the effects of the crisis on individuals, families, and
communities; and cover the costs of law enforcement efforts and treatment programs. In 2016,

States; the company and its shareholders also settled civil claims brought by the United States. See id.
205 See, e.g., National Prescription Opiate Litigation, No. 17-MD-2804 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 12, 2017); see also CRS Legal
Sidebar LSB10365, Overview of the Opioid Litigation and Related Settlements and Settlement Proposals, by Wen W.
Shen; CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10226, State and Local Governments Pursue Judicial Solutions to the Opioid Epidemic,
by Jennifer A. Staman.
206 For a brief overview of legal and policy issues related to the opioid epidemic, see CRS In Focus IF12260, The
Opioid Crisis in the United States: A Brief History, by Johnathan H. Duff et al.
207 See CRS Report R44987, The Opioid Epidemic and Federal Efforts to Address It: Frequently Asked Questions, by
Lisa N. Sacco and Erin Bagalman. Technically, the term “opiates” refers to natural compounds found in the opium
poppy, while the term “opioids” refers to synthetic compounds that emulate the effects of opiates, but commentators
often use the term “opioids” to refer to both categories of substances, and this report adopts that usage. See id.
208 Id.
209 Id.
210 See CDC, U.S. Overdose Deaths In 2021 Increased Half as Much as in 2020 – But Are Still Up 15% (May 11,
2022), https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/202205.htm.
211 See Curtis S. Florence, et al., The Economic Burden of Opioid Use Disorder and Fatal Opioid Overdose in the
United States, 2017, 218 DRUG & ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE (Jan. 2021).
Congressional Research Service
22

link to page 12 link to page 27 link to page 20 link to page 18 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

Congress enacted the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (CARA)212 and the
21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act).213 CARA authorized grants to address issues related to the
opioid crisis including abuse prevention and education, law enforcement, and treatment.214 The
Cures Act, among other things, provided additional funding to states combating opioid
addiction.215 In 2018, Congress enacted the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes
Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act (SUPPORT Act), which
sought to address the opioid crisis through far-ranging amendments to the CSA, the FD&C Act,
and other statutes.216 Key amendments to the CSA under the SUPPORT Act included provisions
expanding access to medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction,217 specifying the factors
for determining whether a controlled substance analogue is intended for human consumption,218
revising the factors DEA considers when establishing opioid production quotas,219 and codifying
the definition of “suspicious order” and outlining the CSA’s suspicious order reporting
requirements.220
Building on these far-reaching enactments, the 116th and 117th Congresses enacted legislation
seeking to address specific facets of the opioid crisis. Some of that legislation is discussed in the
following subsections, along with selected recent proposals for reform.
Fentanyl Analogues
One issue that garnered significant attention in the 116th and 117th Congresses is the proliferation
of synthetic drugs, especially synthetic opioids. In contrast to drugs derived from natural
materials such as plants, synthetic drugs are drugs that are chemically produced in a laboratory;
they may have the same chemical structure as an existing natural drug or mimic the effects of an
existing drug using a different chemical structure.221 Many legal pharmaceutical drugs are
synthetically produced.222 On the other hand, clandestine actors seeking to circumvent existing
drug laws often design synthetic drugs that mimic the effects of other drugs—or even produce
similar but stronger effects—but have chemical structures that have been slightly modified to
circumvent existing drug laws.223

212 P.L. 114-198, 130 Stat. 695 (2016).
213 P.L. 114-255, 130 Stat. 1033 (2016).
214 See CRS Report R45449, The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act (P.L.115-271): Medicare Provisions,
coordinated by Suzanne M. Kirchhoff.
215 See id.
216 P.L. 115-271, 132 Stat. 3894 (2018); see also CRS Report R45449, The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities
Act (P.L.115-271): Medicare Provisions, coordinated by Suzanne M. Kirchhoff; CRS Report R45423, Public Health
and Other Related Provisions in P.L 115-271, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, coordinated by Elayne
J. Heisler and Johnathan H. Duff; CRS Report R45405, The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act (P.L. 115-
271): Food and Drug Administration and Controlled Substance Provisions, coordinated by Agata Bodie.
217 P.L. 115-271, §§ 3201-04. For additional information on medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder, see
CRS In Focus IF10219, Opioid Treatment Programs and Related Federal Regulations, by Johnathan H. Duff.
218 P.L. 115-271, § 3241. The question of whether a substance is intended for human consumption is relevant to
controlled substance analogue prosecutions. See supra “Analogues and Listed Chemicals”; infra “Fentanyl Analogues.”
219 P.L. 115-271, § 3282. See also supra “Quotas.”
220 P.L. 115-271, §§ 3291-92. See also supra “Recordkeeping and Reporting.”
221 See CRS Report R42066, Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress, by Lisa N. Sacco and Kristin Finklea.
222 See, e.g., Kevin R. Campos, et al., The Importance of Synthetic Chemistry in the Pharmaceutical Industry, SCIENCE,
Jan. 18, 2019.
223 Synthetic drugs that slightly modify the molecular structures of controlled substances to circumvent existing drug
Congressional Research Service
23

link to page 15 link to page 12 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

One particular public concern in this area relates to synthetic opioids, including fentanyl
analogues.224 Prescription fentanyl is a Schedule II controlled substance; multiple non-
pharmaceutical substances related to fentanyl are controlled in Schedule I.225 However, it is
relatively easy to manipulate the chemical structure of fentanyl in order to produce new
substances that may have similar effects to fentanyl or pose other dangers if consumed.226 DEA
has stated that, between March 2011 and January 2020, the agency used its emergency scheduling
authority227 to impose temporary controls on 74 synthetic drugs, including 17 fentanyl-like
substances.228
Even if not individually scheduled under the CSA, substances related to fentanyl may be subject
to DEA control as controlled substance analogues.229 However, DOJ has stated that analogue
prosecutions can be burdensome because they raise “complex chemical and scientific issues.”230
That is because liability for trafficking in controlled substance analogues requires proof that the
substance at issue (1) is intended for human consumption and (2) has either a chemical structure
substantially similar to the chemical structure of a Schedule I or II controlled substance or an
actual or intended effect similar to or greater than that of a Schedule I or II controlled
substance.231 For fentanyl analogues that are explicitly scheduled, proof of those additional
elements is not necessary. Moreover, some synthetic drugs do not meet the applicable criteria to
be deemed controlled substance analogues—for example, because their effects are unpredictable
or because they replicate the effects of more than one class of drugs.232 DOJ has therefore argued
that permanent scheduling of fentanyl analogues can reduce uncertainty and aid enforcement.233
The 116th and 117th Congresses did not permanently schedule fentanyl analogues, but they did
enact legislation to facilitate DEA’s regulation of those substances. In February 2018, DEA
issued an emergency scheduling order (Fentanyl TSO) that temporarily placed in Schedule I a
class of “fentanyl-related substances.”234 While previous scheduling actions by DEA and
Congress generally identified a specific substance or a list of discrete substances for control, the
Fentanyl TSO instead imposed controls on a large class of fentanyl-related substances that met
specific criteria related to their chemical structures. That class of substances is finite, but it

laws may also be called “designer drugs.” See CRS Report R42066, Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for
Congress, by Lisa N. Sacco and Kristin Finklea.
224 See, e.g., Press Release, U.S. Atty. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., et al., Congress Must Ban Fentanyl Analogues (Jan. 30,
2020), https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdnc/pr/congress-must-ban-fentanyl-analogues.
225 See 21 C.F.R. §§ 1308.11, 1308.12.
226 See CRS Report R42066, Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress, by Lisa N. Sacco and Kristin Finklea.
227 See supra “Emergency Scheduling.”
228 See Fentanyl Analogues: Perspectives on Classwide Scheduling: Hearing Before the House Comm. on the
Judiciary, 116th Cong. 2 (2020) (statement of the U.S. Dep’t of Justice). Since January 2020, DEA has used its
emergency scheduling authority to control additional synthetic opioids. See DEA, Schedules of Controlled Substances:
Temporary Placement of Isotonitazene in Schedule I, 85 Fed. Reg. 51,342 (Aug. 20, 2020); DEA, Schedules of
Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of Butonitazene, Etodesnitazene, Flunitazene, Metodesnitazene,
Metonitazene, N-Pyrrolidino etonitazene, and Protonitazene in Schedule I, 87 Fed. Reg. 21,556 (Apr. 12, 2022).
229 See supra “Analogues and Listed Chemicals.”
230 DOJ Testimony, supra note 34 at 5.
231 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(32), 813; see also DOJ Testimony, supra note 34 at 5.
232 See CRS Report R42066, Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress, by Lisa N. Sacco and Kristin Finklea.
233 DOJ Testimony, supra note 34 at 5.
234 DEA, Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of Fentanyl-Related Substances in Schedule I, 83
Fed. Reg. 5188 (Feb. 6, 2018). The emergency scheduling order applies to “any substance not otherwise [subject to the
CSA] that is structurally related to fentanyl by one or more [specified] modifications.” Id. at 5191-92.
Congressional Research Service
24

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

includes thousands of chemicals.235 As one researcher testified before Congress, the effects,
potential for abuse and dependence, and medical utility of many of those substances are
unknown.236 Perhaps because of those uncertainties, DEA did not initiate permanent scheduling
of the class of substances subject to the Fentanyl TSO,237 though the agency has continued to take
temporary and permanent scheduling actions with respect to specific fentanyl analogues,
including selected fentanyl-related substances subject to the Fentanyl TSO.238
The Fentanyl TSO was set to expire in February 2020.239 On February 6, 2020, Congress enacted
the Temporary Reauthorization and Study of the Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues
Act, which extended temporary scheduling of the class of fentanyl-related substances until May
6, 2021.240 Congress has since extended the temporary scheduling several times, most recently
through December 31, 2024.241
Absent further legislative or administrative action, substances subject to the Fentanyl TSO will
remain in Schedule I and subject to all restrictions and penalties applicable to Schedule I
substances until the December 2024 expiration date. After the expiration date, the class of
substances will no longer be scheduled under the CSA but may still be subject to control as
controlled substance analogues. As noted, fentanyl itself and certain specific related chemicals are
permanently controlled in Schedules I and II.242 The Temporary Reauthorization and Study of the
Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act and subsequent legislation extending the
temporary scheduling do not affect those classifications.
Multiple proposals in the 116th and 117th Congresses sought to permanently schedule fentanyl
analogues. Some of the proposals would have permanently placed the class of substances subject
to the Fentanyl TSO in Schedule I.243 Others would have scheduled the class of fentanyl-related
substances subject to the Fentanyl TSO plus certain specific substances.244

235 The Countdown: Fentanyl Analogues & the Expiring Emergency Scheduling Order: Hearing Before the Sen. Comm.
on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. 2 (2019) (statement of Kemp L. Chester).
236 See Fentanyl Analogues: Perspectives on Classwide Scheduling: Hearing Before the House Comm. on the
Judiciary, 116th Cong. 4 (2020) (statement of Sandra D. Comer).
237 By statute, DEA rulemaking permanently scheduling a controlled substance must be supported by certain factual
findings. See 21 U.S.C. § 811(c). January 2020 testimony from an HHS official indicated that, given the large number
of substances subject to the order, it was not feasible to make the individualized findings required to schedule each
substance permanently. Fentanyl Analogues: Perspectives on Classwide Scheduling: Hearing Before the House Comm.
on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. 4 (2020) (statement of Brett P. Giroir). Congress is not required to make the same
findings to schedule a substance via legislation.
238 See DEA, Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of Four Specific Fentanyl-Related Substances in
Schedule I, 86 Fed. Reg. 14,707 (Mar. 18, 2021).
239 DEA, Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of Fentanyl-Related Substances in Schedule I, 83
Fed. Reg. 5188, 5188 (Feb. 6, 2018).
240 P.L. 116-114, 134 Stat. 103 (2020). For further discussion of the Temporary Reauthorization and Study of the
Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10404, An Expiration Date for
Temporary Control of Fentanyl Analogues, by Joanna R. Lampe.
241 P.L. 117-328, div. O, § 601.
242 See 21 C.F.R. §§ 1308.11, 1308.12.
243 See, e.g., Protecting Americans from Fentanyl Trafficking Act of 2022, S. 3457, 117th Cong. (2022); CEASE
Overdose Act of 2022, H.R. 6713, 117th Cong. (2022); Federal Initiative To Guarantee Health by Targeting Fentanyl
Act, H.R. 1910, 117th Cong. (2021); see also Zero Tolerance for Deceptive Fentanyl Trafficking Act, S. 3342, 116th
Cong. (2020) (would have permanently added “fentanyl-related substances” to Schedule I and imposed criminal
penalties for knowingly misrepresenting or knowingly marketing as another substance a mixture or substance
containing fentanyl, a fentanyl analogue, or a fentanyl-related substance).
244 See, e.g., Stopping Overdoses of Fentanyl Analogues Act, H.R. 2209, 117th Cong. (2021); S. 1006. 117th Cong.
Congressional Research Service
25

link to page 28 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

Some proposals also sought to address specific concerns related to class-wide scheduling.
Because the effects of some of the substances subject to the Fentanyl TSO are currently unknown,
it is possible that some might have legitimate medical uses or pose little or no risk of abuse and
dependence. Thus, some legislative proposals sought to facilitate research on the substances
subject to class-wide scheduling245 or would have provided for expedited descheduling if a
fentanyl-related substance were found not to pose a risk of abuse and dependence.246 In addition,
based on concerns that individuals prosecuted for trafficking in fentanyl-related substances might
face harsh penalties for offenses involving substances that pose little danger, some legislative
proposals would have provided that mandatory minimum sentences under the CSA would not
apply to those who committed certain offenses involving fentanyl-related substances.247
A key challenge in permanently scheduling fentanyl analogues is how to define the substances
subject to regulation. The Fentanyl TSO identified a class of substances for control based on their
chemical structures. On one hand, not all analogues of fentanyl have effects similar to fentanyl
itself,248 so defining covered substances based on chemical structure may be overinclusive,
potentially allowing for prosecution of individuals who possess inactive substances that pose no
threat to public health and safety.249 On the other hand, such a definition may also be
underinclusive because it excludes opioids that are not chemically related to fentanyl or that are
made using different modifications to fentanyl’s chemical structure.250
Congress could also consider alternative approaches to class-wide scheduling. For example, a
proposal during the 116th Congress, the Modernizing Drug Enforcement Act of 2019,251 would
have identified covered opioids based on their effects rather than their chemical structure,
amending the CSA to add to Schedule I all “mu opioid receptor agonists” not otherwise
scheduled, subject to certain exceptions.252 That approach might avoid the concerns about scope
of control noted above. It is not clear it would significantly reduce the burden that prosecutors
currently face when bringing controlled substance charges related to analogues, because
prosecutors would need to show that a given substance had the required effects.253

(2021). See also Stopping Overdoses of Fentanyl Analogues Act, H.R. 2935, 116th Cong. (2019); S. 1622, 116th Cong.
(2019).
245 See, e.g., HALT Fentanyl Act, H.R. 6184, 117th Cong. (2021); S. 3336, 117th Cong. (2021); SIFT Act of 2021,
H.R. 2041, 117th Cong. (2021).
246 See, e.g., SAFE Act of 2022, H.R. 6946, 117th Cong. (2022).
247 See, e.g., id.; Federal Initiative To Guarantee Health by Targeting Fentanyl Act, H.R. 3269, 117th Cong. (2021).
248 To illustrate, DEA previously temporarily scheduled two fentanyl analogues before determining that the substances
were “essentially inactive.” See DEA, Correction of Code of Federal Regulations: Removal of Temporary Listing of
Benzylfentanyl and Thenylfentanyl as Controlled Substances, 75 Fed. Reg. 37,300, 37,300 (June 29, 2010).
249 See Letter from A New PATH, et al. to Sens. Graham and Feinstein (July 1, 2019),
https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/07/03/coalition-opposes-s1622-stopping-overdoses-fentanyl-analogues-act-sofa.
250 The Countdown: Fentanyl Analogues & the Expiring Emergency Scheduling Order: Hearing Before the Sen. Comm.
on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. 2-3 (2019) (statement of Kemp L. Chester).
251 H.R. 2580, 116th Cong. (2019).
252 Mu opioid receptor agonists are a class are opioids including morphine, defined by the specific molecular reactions
that produce their pharmacological effects. See Teresa Kasere, et al., μ Opioid Receptor: Novel Antagonists and
Structural Modeling, SCIENTIFIC REPORTS (Feb. 18, 2016).
253 See supra note 231.
Congressional Research Service
26

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

Supervised Consumption Sites
Another prominent legal issue arising from the opioid epidemic concerns the legality of
supervised consumption sites under the CSA. Supervised consumption sites (sometimes also
called safe injection sites) are facilities that pursue a harm reduction strategy by permitting the
use of controlled substances in the presence of staff who can administer overdose-reversal
medications, distributing medical supplies such as sterile syringes, and offering referrals to social
services including substance use treatment.254 In recent years, courts and policymakers have
considered whether a provision of the CSA that prohibits “[m]aintaining drug-involved
premises,” 21 U.S.C. § 856 (Section 856), bars the operation of supervised consumption sites.
Congress first enacted Section 856 in 1986 in response to concerns about “crack houses”—
premises where illicit drugs such as crack cocaine were manufactured, stored, distributed, and
used.255 Congress amended the provision in 2003 to target facilities that hosted “raves,” where
attendees distributed and used drugs such as MDMA.256
Section 856 imposes two criminal prohibitions. The first, contained in Section 856(a)(1),
prohibits an entity from maintaining premises for its own drug-related activities.257 The second,
Section 856(a)(2), prohibits making premises available for drug-related activity by third
parties.258 Supervised consumption sites and their staff generally do not produce, distribute, or
otherwise handle drugs, so legal questions related to such facilities center on Section 856(a)(2).259
In 2018, a nonprofit called Safehouse announced plans to open a supervised consumption site in
Philadelphia. The United States sued Safehouse to block the proposed facility, arguing that the
supervised consumption site would violate Section 856.260 On January 12, 2021, in United States
v. Safehouse, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with the government.261 A
majority of the three-judge panel held that Safehouse need not “have the purpose that its visitors
use drugs” but rather “need only ‘knowingly and intentionally’ open its site to visitors who come
‘for the purpose of ... using’ drugs.”262 The court also concluded that, in “offer[ing] visitors a
space to inject themselves with drugs,” Safehouse would violate Section 856 because the

254 See, e.g., Safehouse, The Safehouse Model, https://www.safehousephilly.org/about/the-safehouse-model (last
visited Dec. 30, 2022); see also Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Harm Reduction,
https://www.samhsa.gov/find-help/harm-reduction (last visited Dec. 30, 2022); Jeffery C. Mays & Andy Newman,
Nation’s First Supervised Drug-Injection Sites Open in New York, N.Y. TIMES (Nov. 30, 2021).
255 See Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, P.L. 99-570, § 1841 (1986); see also, e.g., Nina Feldman, In Philadelphia,
Judges Rule Against Opening 'Supervised' Site To Inject Opioids, NPR (Jan. 14, 2021).
256 See Protect Act, P.L. 108-21 § 608 (2003).
257 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) (providing that it shall be unlawful to “knowingly open, lease, rent, use, or maintain any
place, whether permanently or temporarily, for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled
substance”).
258 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2) (providing that it shall be unlawful to “manage or control any place ... and knowingly and
intentionally rent, lease, profit from, or make available for use, with or without compensation, the place for the purpose
of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance”).
259 See, e.g., Safehouse, Frequently Asked Questions, https://www.safehousephilly.org/frequently-asked-questions (last
visited Dec. 30, 2022).
260 See Press Release, DOJ, Civil Lawsuit Filed to Seek Judicial Declaration that Drug Injection Site Is Illegal Under
Federal Law (Feb. 6, 2019), https://www.justice.gov/usao-edpa/pr/civil-lawsuit-filed-seek-judicial-declaration-drug-
injection-site-illegal-under-federal.
261 985 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2021).
262 Id. at 232.
Congressional Research Service
27

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

organization “itself has a significant purpose that its visitors use heroin, fentanyl, and the like.”263
In response to Safehouse’s argument that this application was not what Congress intended when it
enacted and amended Section 856, the majority held that the text of the statute was clear, so the
court need not look beyond the text to other indicia of congressional intent.264
One member of the Third Circuit panel dissented. Senior Judge Roth contended that the text of
Section 856 is ambiguous and that the majority erred in construing the ambiguous text in a way
that imposed broad criminal liability.265 She would have also held that Safehouse lacked the
requisite intent to violate Section 856 because it “is not motivated at least in part by a desire for
unlawful drug activity to occur and ... in fact wants to reduce drug activity.”266 The Supreme
Court declined to review the Third Circuit’s decision.267
As of January 2023, Safehouse has not commenced operation. However, other states and
localities have begun considering whether to authorize such facilities. During the Safehouse
litigation, there were already multiple reports of a supervised consumption site operating in secret
in an undisclosed location, and local governments and other organizations outside Philadelphia
had begun to consider similar facilities.268 In July 2021, Rhode Island enacted legislation
authorizing supervised consumption sites under state law.269 The Illinois, Massachusetts, and New
Mexico state legislatures have also considered legislation related to supervised consumption
sites.270 The California legislature passed legislation in 2022 that would have allowed supervised
consumption sites to operate on a trial basis in three cities,271 but the governor vetoed it,
expressing concerns that the legislation might inadvertently “[w]orsen[ ] drug consumption
challenges” in those cities.272
In November 2021, two supervised consumption sites began operating openly in New York City
with the approval of the city government.273 The city reported that the sites were used 2,000 times
in their first three weeks of operation and averted at least 59 potential overdose deaths.274 While
DOJ actively opposed the operation of supervised consumption sites under the Trump
Administration, to date the Biden Administration has not sought to invoke the CSA against such
facilities. In February 2022, DOJ stated that it was “evaluating supervised consumption sites,

263 Id. at 238.
264 Id. at 238-39.
265 Id. at 244- 45 (Roth, S.J., dissenting).
266 Id. at 251 (Roth, S.J., dissenting).
267 Safehouse v. Dept. of Justice, 142 S. Ct. 345 (2021).
268 See, e.g., Ronnie Cohen, Drug Users Find Safety, Community in Underground Injection Facility, REUTERS (Jan. 12,
2018); Lenny Bernstein, A Secret, Supervised Place Where Users Can Inject Drugs Has Been Operating in the U.S. for
Three Years, WASH. POST (Aug. 8, 2017); Gabrielle Masson, Massachusetts General Hosts Mock Safe Injection Site,
BECKER’S HOSP. REV. (Oct. 16, 2019).
269 R.I. Stat. § 23-12.10-1 et seq; see also Aaron Warnick, Rhode Island Approves Nation’s First Sites for Safe Drug
Injection Use, THE NATION’S HEALTH (Oct. 2021).
270 H.B. 100, 102nd Gen. Assembly (Ill. 2022); S. 1258, 192nd Gen. Ct. (Mass. 2021); H.B. 123, 55th Leg. (N.M.
2021).
271 S.B. 57, 2021-22 Reg. Sess. (Ca. 2021).
272 See Cheri Mossburg, Newsom Vetoes Bill Proposing Safe Drug Injection Sites in California, CNN (Aug. 22, 2022).
273 Press Release, NYC Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, Overdose Prevention Centers Averted 59 Overdoses in
First Three Weeks of Operation (Dec. 21, 2021), https://www.nyc.gov/site/doh/about/press/pr2021/overdose-
prevention-centers-prevent-59-deaths.page.
274 Id.
Congressional Research Service
28

link to page 36 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

including discussions with state and local regulators about appropriate guardrails for such sites, as
part of an overall approach to harm reduction and public safety.”275
In the meantime, uncertainty remains as to the legality of supervised consumption sites under the
CSA. Congress could wait to see if other courts address the issue, or it could seek to resolve that
uncertainty by enacting legislation. If Congress decided to allow supervised consumption sites to
operate, it could consider the breadth of such authorization. One option would be to exempt
supervised consumption sites from CSA control entirely. Alternatively, Congress might choose to
exempt from federal prosecution facilities operating in compliance with state and local law, as it
has done with state-sanctioned medical marijuana through a series of appropriations riders.276
Another option would be for Congress to impose specific registration requirements for supervised
consumption sites under the CSA, as it has done for entities that administer medication-assisted
treatment for opioid use disorder.277
If Congress decided not to allow supervised consumption sites, it could amend Section 856 to
prohibit those facilities explicitly, as it did with respect to other activities in 2003,278 or enact
separate legislation to ban supervised consumption sites. Congress could also withhold federal
spending from supervised consumption sites.279 For example, a proposal during the 117th
Congress would have prohibited federal funds from being “used by any Federal agency to operate
or control ... an injection center” that violates Section 856.280 Others would have limited the
availability of federal funds to states, localities, Indian tribes, and other entities that operate
supervised consumption sites in violation of Section 856.281
Other Proposals Related to Opioid Regulation
In addition to the proposals discussed above, numerous other legislative proposals in the 117th
Congress sought to address the opioid crisis by amending the CSA.282 For instance, the LABEL
Opioids Act would have required certain opioid medications subject to the CSA to bear a “clear,

275 Justice Department Signals It May Allow Supervised Injection Sites, CBS NEWS N.Y. (Feb. 8, 2022).
276 See infra “Appropriations Limitations.”
277 See 21 U.S.C. § 823(h); see also CRS In Focus IF10219, Opioid Treatment Programs and Related Federal
Regulations, by Johnathan H. Duff.
278 See Protect Act, P.L. 108-21 § 608 (2003).
279 For background on Congress’s spending power, see Cong. Rsch. Serv., Overview of Spending Clause,
CONSTITUTION ANNOTATED, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C1-2-1/ALDE_00013356/ (last
visited Dec. 30, 2022).
280 Crack is Whack Act, H.R. 6741, § 2, 117th Cong. (2022).
281 See Stop Injection Sites for Illegal Drugs Act of 2022, H.R. 7029, 117th Cong. (2022); Defund de Blasio’s Injection
Sites Act of 2021, H.R. 6159, 117th Cong. (2021).
282 Numerous additional proposals to address the opioid epidemic fall outside the scope of this report. For instance,
some proposals would amend the FD&C Act to increase liability for pharmaceutical companies or executives that
violate the FD&C Act. See, e.g., FDA Accountability for Public Safety Act, S. 1439, 117th Cong. (2021); Protecting
Americans from Dangerous Opioids Act, S. 1434, 117th Cong. (2021); Opioid Crisis Accountability Act, S. 1584,
116th Cong. (2019). Others would provide additional funding for local law enforcement efforts, opioid dependence
treatment, or other related initiatives. See, e.g., Budgeting for Opioid Addiction Treatment Act, S. 1723, 117th Cong.
(2022); Opioid Treatment Surge Act, S. 1662, 116th Cong. (2019). Some proposals would direct the Secretary of
Homeland Security to designate “illicit fentanyl” as a weapon of mass destruction. See SOS Act of 2022, H.R. 9162,
117th Cong. (2022); Fentanyl is a WMD Act, H.R. 8030, 117th Cong. (2022); see also CRS Insight IN11902, Illicit
Fentanyl and Weapons of Mass Destruction: International Controls and Policy Options, by Paul K. Kerr and Liana W.
Rosen.
Congressional Research Service
29

link to page 22 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

concise warning that the opioid dispensed can cause dependence, addiction, and overdose.”283
The Medication Access and Training Expansion Act of 2021 would have “require[d] physicians
and other prescribers of controlled substances to complete training on treating and managing
patients with opioid and other substance use disorders.”284 The Mainstreaming Addiction
Treatment Act of 2021 would have relaxed CSA registration requirements for practitioners who
dispense narcotic drugs in Schedules III, IV, or V (such as buprenorphine) for maintenance or
detoxification treatment.285 The Harm Reduction Through Community Engagement Act of 2022
would have imposed additional registration requirements for opioid treatment programs.286 The
Opioid QuOTA Act of 2021 would have required publication of the annual quotas that apply to
each registered opioid manufacturer.287
Other proposals would have amended CSA provisions that impose criminal penalties for
unauthorized activities involving opioids.288 Some proposals sought to increase criminal penalties
for certain fentanyl-related offenses, imposing life in prison or the death penalty.289 Others would
have lowered the amounts of fentanyl or fentanyl analogues required to trigger existing
mandatory minimum sentences.290 Some proposals targeted misrepresenting the content of a
substance containing fentanyl or manufacturing counterfeit substances that contain fentanyl and
bear identifying marks of another product.291 Another proposal would have authorized special
agents of Homeland Security Investigations to perform certain enforcement functions under the
CSA.292
Federal and State Marijuana Regulation
Another topic that raised a number of legal considerations for the 117th Congress is the
increasing divergence between federal and state marijuana regulation.293 As of January 2023, 21
states, two territories, and the District of Columbia have passed laws removing prohibitions on
medical and recreational marijuana use by adults age 21 or older.294 Thirty-seven states have
passed laws permitting medical use of marijuana. Another 10 states authorize medical use of
cannabis derivatives, such as cannabidiol (CBD), that contain low levels of tetrahydrocannabinol

283 H.R. 1026, 117th Cong. (2021); S. 2353, 117th Cong. (2021).
284 S. 2235, 117th Cong. (2021).
285 H.R. 1384, 117th Cong. (2021); S. 445, 117th Cong. (2021).
286 H.R. 8917, 117th Cong. (2021).
287 H.R. 6150, 117th Cong. (2021); S. 3327, 117th Cong. (2021).
288 For general discussion of the CSA’s trafficking provisions, see supra “Trafficking Provisions.”
289 See, e.g., Fentanyl Trafficker Elimination Act, H.R. 6439, 117th Cong. (2022); Death Penalty for Dealing Fentanyl
Act of 2022, H.R. 8228, 117th Cong. (2022).
290 See, e.g., Fentanyl Penalties Parity Act, H.R. 5694, 117th Cong. (2021); Ending the Fentanyl Crisis Act of 2021, S.
1293, 117th Cong. (2021).
291 See, e.g., Zero Tolerance for Deceptive Fentanyl Trafficking Act, S. 4984, 117th Cong. (2022); Stop Pills That Kill
Act, H.R. 8175, 117th Cong. (2022); S. 4151, 117th Cong. (2022).
292 Homeland Security Fentanyl Enforcement Act, H.R. 9093, 117th Cong. (2022).
293 See generally CRS Report R44782, The Evolution of Marijuana as a Controlled Substance and the Federal-State
Policy Gap, coordinated by Lisa N. Sacco.
294 See Nat’l Conference of State Legislatures, State Medical Marijuana Laws (Nov. 9, 2022),
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-medical-marijuana-laws.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
30

link to page 36 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

(THC).295 However, marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law, and state
marijuana legislation has no effect on that status.296
As discussed below, certain legal and practical considerations limit federal prosecutions of
individuals and businesses involved in the state-legal marijuana industry.297 However, regardless
of whether they are subject to criminal prosecution, marijuana users and participants in the state-
legal marijuana industry may face collateral consequences arising from the federal prohibition of
marijuana. Various federal laws impose legal consequences based on criminal activity, including
violations of the CSA. For example, even if authorized under state law, marijuana businesses may
be unable to access banking services due to federal anti-money laundering laws,298 and those
businesses may be ineligible for certain federal tax deductions.299 The involvement of income
from a marijuana-related business may also prevent a bankruptcy court from approving a
bankruptcy plan.300 For individuals, some CSA violations involving marijuana may have adverse
immigration consequences.301 Illicit drug use or convictions may limit individuals’ eligibility for

295 Id.
296 See, e.g., Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 29 (2004). See also CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10482, State Marijuana
“Legalization” and Federal Drug Law: A Brief Overview for Congress, by Joanna R. Lampe. Notably, however, not all
CBD is subject to the CSA. The 2018 Farm Bill exempted “hemp”—cannabis and cannabis derivatives containing very
low levels of THC—from control under the CSA. See 21 U.S.C. § 802(16)(B)(i). Accordingly, CBD that meets those
requirements is no longer a federally controlled substance. CBD remains subject to federal regulation under the FD&C
Act, and FDA has taken the position that CBD is a drug that may not lawfully added to foods or marketed as a dietary
supplement. See Press Release, FDA, Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on Signing of the
Agriculture Improvement Act and the Agency’s Regulation of Products Containing Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived
Compounds (Dec. 20, 2018); see also Sean M. O’Connor & Erika Lietzan, The Surprising Reach of FDA Regulation of
Cannabis, Even After Descheduling, 68 AM. U. L. REV. 823 (2019); CRS In Focus IF11250, FDA Regulation of
Cannabidiol (CBD) Consumer Products, by Agata Bodie and Renée Johnson.
297 See infra “Appropriations Limitations.”
298 Anti-money laundering laws prohibit, inter alia, “conduct[ing] or attempt[ing] to conduct ... a financial transaction
which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity ... with the intent to promote the carrying on of
specified unlawful activity” 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a). For a full list of predicate offenses, see the “Specified Unlawful
Activities” section of CRS Report RL33315, Money Laundering: An Overview of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 and Related
Federal Criminal Law, by Charles Doyle. For further discussion of banking law issues related to the marijuana policy
gap, see the “Federal Financial Laws and Financial Services for Marijuana Businesses” section of CRS Report R44782,
The Evolution of Marijuana as a Controlled Substance and the Federal-State Policy Gap, coordinated by Lisa N.
Sacco.
299 See 26 U.S.C. § 280E (“No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable
year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or
business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled
Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is
conducted.”). See generally CRS Report R46709, The Application of Internal Revenue Code Section 280E to
Marijuana Businesses: Selected Legal Issues, by Milan N. Ball.
300 A court may not confirm a bankruptcy plan “proposed ... by any means forbidden by law.” 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a).
Courts have split on how that provision applies to cannabis-related businesses. Compare Garvin v. Cook Investments
NW, SPNWY, LLC, 922 F.3d 1031, 1033 (9th Cir. 2019) (concluding that a bankruptcy plan involving leased property
used to grow marijuana was not proposed “by any means forbidden by law”), with In re Rent-Rite Super Kegs W. Ltd.,
484 B.R. 799, 809 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2012) (dismissing a bankruptcy case where the debtor derived roughly 25% of its
revenues from leasing warehouse space to tenants who grew marijuana because “a significant portion of the Debtor’s
income is derived from an illegal activity”) (footnote omitted).
301 See 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a) (providing that no person shall be naturalized unless that person, among other things, “has
been and still is a person of good moral character”); 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(2) (“An applicant shall be found to lack good
moral character if during the statutory period the applicant ... [v]iolated any law of the United States, any State, or any
foreign country relating to a controlled substance, provided that the violation was not a single offense for simple
possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana”).
Congressional Research Service
31

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

federal student financial aid and other benefits.302 Federal law also prohibits the possession of
firearms or ammunition by any person who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled
substance.”303 Furthermore, people who use marijuana, even for medical purposes, generally
enjoy little or no legal protection from adverse employment consequences.304
Appropriations Limitations
Congress has addressed the divergence between federal and state marijuana law in part by
limiting enforcement of the CSA against certain state-legal activities related to medical
marijuana. In each budget cycle since FY2015, Congress has passed an appropriations rider
prohibiting DOJ from using taxpayer funds to prevent the states from “implementing their own
laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.”305 The
current appropriations rider is in effect through September 30, 2023.306 Several federal courts
have interpreted the appropriations rider to bar DOJ from expending any appropriated funds to
prosecute activities involving marijuana that are conducted in “strict compliance” with state
law.307 For example, in the 2019 case United States v. Evans, the Ninth Circuit upheld the
prosecution of two individuals involved in the production of medical marijuana who smoked
marijuana as they processed plants for sale.308 Although state law permitted medical marijuana
use by “qualifying patients,” the court concluded that the defendants failed to show they were
“qualifying patients,” and thus they could be prosecuted because their personal marijuana use did
not strictly comply with state medical marijuana law.309
More recently, in the 2022 case United States v. Bilodeau, the First Circuit held that the rider also
bars prosecution in some cases where defendants did not strictly comply with state medical
marijuana law.310 The First Circuit noted that the text of the rider does not explicitly require strict
compliance with state law and that, given the complexity of state marijuana regulations, “the
potential for technical noncompliance [with state law] is real enough that no person through any
reasonable effort could always assure strict compliance.”311 Thus, the First Circuit concluded that
requiring strict compliance with state law would likely chill state-legal medical marijuana

302 See CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10556, The MORE Act: House Plans Historic Vote on Federal Marijuana Legalization,
by Joanna R. Lampe; CRS Report R42394, Drug Testing and Crime-Related Restrictions in TANF, SNAP, and Housing
Assistance, by Maggie McCarty et al.
303 18 U.S.C. § 922.
304 See Kathryn Evans, What Legal Protections Exist for Employees who Use Medical Marijuana?, NAT’L LAW REV.
(Oct. 21, 2020), https://www.natlawreview.com/article/what-legal-protections-exist-employees-who-use-medical-
marijuana.
305 P.L. 117-328, div. B, § 531. The appropriations rider enumerates the specific states and territories to which it
applies. The list excludes the three states that have not decriminalized medical marijuana use.
306 See id. § 5.
307 See United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163, 1178 (9th Cir. 2016); Duval v. United States, 372 F. Supp. 3d 544,
555-56 (E.D. Mich. 2019); Sandusky v. Goetz, 2018 WL 6505803 at *4-5 (D. Colo. Dec. 11, 2018); United States v.
Jackson, 2019 WL 3239844 at *6-8 (E.D. Pa. June 5, 2019).
308 929 F.3d 1073, 1076-79 (9th Cir. 2019). See also United States v. Kleinman, 880 F.3d 1020, 1027-30 (9th Cir.
2017) (prosecution was proper because sales of marijuana to out-of-state customers violated state law); United Sates v.
Bloomquist, 361 F. Supp. 3d 744, 749-51 (W.D. Mich. 2019) (same where defendant violated state law by possessing
excessive amounts of marijuana and selling marijuana to someone who was not allowed to use medical marijuana).
309 Evans, 929 F.3d at 1078-79 (9th Cir. 2019).
310 24 F.4th 705 (2022).
311 Id. at 713.
Congressional Research Service
32

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

activities and prevent the states from giving effect to their medical marijuana laws.312 However,
the court also rejected the defendants’ argument that the rider “must be read to preclude the DOJ,
under most circumstances, from prosecuting persons who possess state licenses to partake in
medical marijuana activity.”313 Ultimately, the First Circuit held that the rider bars CSA
prosecution in at least some cases where the defendant has committed minor technical violations
of state medical marijuana laws, but it declined to “fully define [the] precise boundaries” of its
alternative standard.314
It remains to be seen whether and how the difference in reasoning between the Ninth Circuit and
the First Circuit will make a practical difference in federal marijuana prosecutions.315 Congress
has the power to enact legislation adopting its preferred interpretation of the rider or otherwise
clarifying its scope. Congress could also expand the scope of the rider to bar prosecution of other
state-legal activities involving marijuana316 or limit or repeal the rider.
Executive Branch Policy and Simple Possession Pardon
Notwithstanding the appropriations rider, activities that fall outside the scope of state medical
marijuana laws remain potentially subject to federal prosecution. This includes all state-legal
activities involving recreational marijuana. As a practical matter, DOJ has typically not
prosecuted individuals who possess marijuana for personal use on private property but instead has
“left such lower-level or localized marijuana activity to state and local authorities through
enforcement of their own drug laws.”317 DOJ issued guidance in 2018 reaffirming the authority of
federal prosecutors to exercise prosecutorial discretion to target federal marijuana offenses “in
accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and appropriations.”318 In recent years, DOJ has
pursued marijuana prosecutions in the context of large-scale trafficking operations or gang-related
activity.319 The Biden Administration DOJ has not issued formal guidance on marijuana policy,

312 Id. at 713-14.
313 Id. at 714.
314 Id. at 715. On the record before it, the court concluded that “the defendants’ cultivation, possession, and distribution
of marijuana aimed at supplying persons whom no defendant ever thought were qualifying patients under Maine law”
and that a CSA conviction in those circumstances would not “prevent Maine’s medical marijuana laws from having
their intended practical effect.” Id.
315 In theory, the First Circuit’s analysis could make it easier for defendants to invoke the appropriations rider to bar
federal prosecutions, because they could do so even if they had not been in strict compliance with state law. In practice,
however, resource limitations and enforcement priorities have historically meant that federal marijuana prosecutions
target individuals and organizations that have clearly not complied with state medical marijuana law. Thus, one of the
First Circuit judges who considered Bilodeau agreed with the panel’s interpretation of the rider but wrote a concurrence
noting that, in practice, the First Circuit’s standard might not be “materially different from the one that the Ninth
Circuit applied.” Id. at 718 (Barron, J., concurring).
316 See, e.g., State Cannabis Commerce Act, H.R. 3546, 116th Cong. (2019); S. 2030, 116th Cong. (2019); cf. STATES
Act, H.R. 2093, 116th Cong. (2019); S. 1028, 116th Cong. (2019) (proposal to amend the CSA to provide that most
provisions related to marijuana “shall not apply to any person acting in compliance with State law relating to the
manufacture, production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery” of marijuana).
317 U.S. Government Accountability Office, State Marijuana Legalization: DOJ Should Document Its Approach to
Monitoring the Effects of Legalization, GAO-16-1, 9 (Dec. 2015).
318 Memorandum from Jefferson B. Sessions, Attorney Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, on Marijuana Enforcement to all
United States Attorneys (Jan. 4, 2018), https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1022196/download.
319 See, e.g., Press Release, DOJ, DEA Investigation in Chapel Hill Area Uncovers Large-Scale Drug Ring (Dec. 17,
2020), https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdnc/pr/dea-investigation-chapel-hill-area-uncovers-large-scale-drug-ring; Press
Release, DOJ, Pittsburgh-area Man Sentenced for Supplying SCO Gang with Drugs (Jan. 21, 2021),
https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdpa/pr/pittsburgh-area-man-sentenced-supplying-sco-gang-drugs; Press Release, DOJ,
Indictment Charges Bridgeport Gang Members with Drug Trafficking, Committing 4 Murders (Jan. 22, 2021),
Congressional Research Service
33

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

but Attorney General Merrick Garland has indicated that the agency will not prioritize
prosecuting individuals for personal use of marijuana.320
On October 6, 2022, President Biden issued a proclamation granting “a full, complete, and
unconditional pardon” to “all current United States citizens and lawful permanent residents” who
had committed or been convicted of simple possession of marijuana under the CSA or a related
provision of the D.C. Code.321 President Biden’s invocation of the clemency power means that
people who committed simple possession of marijuana before the date of the proclamation may
not be prosecuted or punished for the offense under the relevant provisions of the CSA or the
D.C. Code.322
Several factors limit the scope of the pardon. First, it applies only to violations of federal and
D.C. law and does not affect other state law marijuana offenses, because the President has no
direct power to change state law or compel the states to adopt federal policies.323 Second, the
pardon applies only to simple possession of marijuana, which the federal government rarely
prosecutes.324 It does not apply to other marijuana-related CSA offenses such as manufacture,
distribution, or possession with intent to distribute or to other federal crimes.325

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/indictment-charges-bridgeport-gang-members-drug-trafficking-committing-4-
murders.
320 See, e.g., Hearing Before the Sen. Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies, 117th Cong. (Apr. 26, 2022) (testimony of Atty. Gen. Merrick B. Garland) (“I think I laid this out actually
also in my confirmation hearing and my view hasn’t really changed since then, and that is that the Justice Department
has almost never prosecuted use of marijuana and that’s not an efficient use of the resources given the opioid and
methamphetamine epidemic that we have.”).
321 Joseph R. Biden, A Proclamation on Granting Pardon for the Offense of Simple Possession of Marijuana (Oct. 6,
2022).
322 Although the District of Columbia has its own criminal code, its criminal justice system has some overlap with the
federal system and is subject to the President’s clemency power. For additional information on the President’s
clemency power, see CRS Report R46179, Presidential Pardons: Overview and Selected Legal Issues, by Michael A.
Foster.
323 See id., “Constraints on the Pardon Power.” In announcing the pardon, President Biden also encouraged state
governors to grant clemency for state offenses. While some governors have taken such steps or expressed willingness
to do so, in some states, governors cannot independently grant clemency. See, e.g., David Montgomery, Governors
Split on Biden’s Call to Pardon Low-Level Pot Offenders, PEW (Oct. 28, 2022), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-
and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/10/28/governors-split-on-bidens-call-to-pardon-low-level-pot-offenders. The pardon
also does not apply to offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. See, e.g., Michael Lee, Biden’s Pardon of
Marijuana Offenses Won’t Apply to Military, FOX NEWS (Oct. 9, 2022), https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bidens-
pardons-marijuana-offenses-wont-apply-military.
324 The U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) reports that about 7,700 people subject to the pardon were convicted of
only simple possession since FY1992, none of whom were in federal custody at the time of the grant of clemency.
USSC, Number of Federal Offenders Convicted Only of 21 U.S.C. § 844 Involving Marijuana, Fiscal Years 1992 –
2021, https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/press-releases-and-news-advisories/news-
advisories/20221012_Updated-News-Advisory-Data-Analysis.pdf. In FY2021, 117 people subject to the pardon were
convicted of only simple possession. See id. Additional individuals convicted of simple possession were not subject to
the pardon. See USSC, WEIGHING THE CHARGES: SIMPLE POSSESSION OF DRUGS IN THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM 6 (Sept. 2016).
325 The USSC reports that 425 people were convicted of possessing marijuana and possessing other illicit drugs. USSC,
Number of Federal Offenders Convicted Only of 21 U.S.C. § 844 Involving Marijuana and Other Drugs, Fiscal Years
1992 – 2021, https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/press-releases-and-news-advisories/news-
advisories/20221012_Updated-News-Advisory-Data-Analysis.pdf#page=2. In addition, 585 people were convicted of
simple possession of marijuana and one or more other crimes. USSC, Number of Federal Offenders Convicted of 21
U.S.C. § 844 Involving Only Marijuana Who Also Have Other Convictions, Fiscal Years 1992 – 2021,
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/press-releases-and-news-advisories/news-
advisories/20221012_Updated-News-Advisory-Data-Analysis.pdf#page=3. Those people would remain liable for the
Congressional Research Service
34

link to page 35 link to page 36 link to page 16 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

Third, the pardon by its terms “does not apply to individuals who were non-citizens not lawfully
present in the United States at the time of their offense.”326 Fourth, the pardon applies only to
offenses committed before the proclamation.327 Thus, while DOJ is currently not prioritizing
prosecuting low-level marijuana offenses, the October 2022 pardon does not prevent prosecution
of future offenses if the current Administration or a future Administration adopts a different
policy. Fifth, the pardon may not remove all legal consequences of marijuana possession, because
it does not expunge convictions.328 Moreover, some collateral consequences of marijuana-related
activities do not depend on a person being charged with or convicted of a CSA violation.329
In addition, and most fundamentally, the pardon does not change the status of marijuana under
federal law. The President lacks the power to make such a change unilaterally.330 In announcing
the grant of clemency, President Biden directed the Attorney General to review the classification
of marijuana under the CSA.331 Such review is one way the federal government could change the
status of the substance consistently with relevant separation-of-powers principles and the CSA’s
procedural requirements.332 Any agency action in response to that directive would likely occur
through notice-and-comment rulemaking and would be subject to judicial review333 and
applicable international treaty obligations.334
Proposed Marijuana Legislation
Numerous proposals introduced in the 117th Congress would have changed how the federal
government regulates marijuana. Congress has broad power to regulate marijuana or relax federal
regulation of the substance as part of its authority over interstate commerce.335

other offenses. After the pardon was announced, the USSC issued policy priorities including “consideration of possible
amendments to the [Sentencing] Guidelines Manual relating to criminal history to address … the impact of simple
possession of marihuana offenses.” USSC, Final Priorities for Amendment Cycle, 87 Fed. Reg. 67,756, 67,756 (Nov. 9,
2022).
326According to a 2016 USSC report, the vast majority of federal marijuana possession arrests occur at the border
between the United States and Mexico and involve non-citizens. See USSC, WEIGHING THE CHARGES: SIMPLE
POSSESSION OF DRUGS IN THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 5-6 (Sept. 2016). Among offenders sentenced for
marijuana possession in FY2013, over 94% of those arrested at the border were not U.S. citizens. Id. at 6. To the extent
those individuals were not lawfully present in the country, they would not benefit from the pardon.
327 The Supreme Court has explained that the President may issue a pardon “at any time after [an offense’s]
commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.” Ex
parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333, 380 (1866).
328 See DOJ, Presidential Proclamation on Marijuana Possession (Nov. 2, 2022),
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/presidential-proclamation-marijuana-possession.
329 See supra notes 298-304 and accompanying text.
330 See CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10655, Does the President Have the Power to Legalize Marijuana?, by Joanna R.
Lampe.
331 Joseph R. Biden, A Proclamation on Granting Pardon for the Offense of Simple Possession of Marijuana (Oct. 6,
2022).
332 See, e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952); 21 U.S.C. § 811.
333 See 21 U.S.C. § 877.
334 The relevant treaties are not self-executing and do not directly bind Congress or private parties, but the CSA
requires DEA to schedule substances as needed to satisfy the United States’ treaty obligations. See 21 USC § 811(d)(1)
(“If control is required by United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on
October 27, 1970, the Attorney General shall issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most
appropriate to carry out such obligations[.]”); see also supra “International Treaty Obligations.”
335 Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 15 (2004). For background on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, see
Cong. Rsch. Serv., Overview of Commerce Clause, CONSTITUTION ANNOTATED,
Congressional Research Service
35

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

Several recent proposals would have removed marijuana from control under the CSA. One high-
profile descheduling proposal, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act
(MORE Act), would have removed marijuana and THC from control under the CSA and required
expungement of past convictions for many federal marijuana offenses.336 Among other things, it
would have also removed some collateral consequences for marijuana-related activities,337
imposed a 5% tax on cannabis products,338 and used revenues from the tax to fund certain grant
programs for disadvantaged individuals and “individuals adversely impacted by the War on
Drugs.”339 The MORE Act passed the House in April 2022 but did not pass the Senate.340
Another descheduling proposal, the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, would have
removed from Schedule I marijuana and THC derived from the cannabis plant.341 It would have
also provided for expungement of certain past marijuana convictions,342 but it would have
retained federal criminal liability for cannabis-related activities not conducted pursuant to a
federal permit or authorized under the law of the states where they occur.343 In addition, among
other things, it would have provided guidance for regulation of cannabis products under the
FD&C Act.344 It would also have imposed a 10%-25% tax on cannabis products345 and used
revenues from the tax to fund programs including small business development, community
reinvestment, and opioid abuse treatment.346 Other legislative proposals from the 117th Congress
would likewise have removed marijuana from control under the CSA.347
Removing marijuana from the coverage of the CSA could raise several legal considerations. First,
by default, the repeal of federal criminal prohibitions rarely applies retroactively.348 To address
this, some descheduling proposals also include provisions designed to address past criminal
convictions related to marijuana.349 Second, removing marijuana from the ambit of the CSA

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C3-1/ALDE_00013403/ (last visited Jan. 3, 2023).
336 H.R. 3617, §§ 3, 10, 117th Cong. (2021).
337 Id. §§ 7-9.
338 Id. § 5.
339 Id. §§ 5-6.
340 A previous version of the MORE Act passed the House in December 2020, the first time either chamber of Congress
voted on a proposal to decriminalize marijuana. See H.R. 3884, 116th Cong. (2020), see also Nicholas Wu, House Will
Vote on Federal Marijuana Legalization for the First Time, Bill’s Future in Senate Uncertain, USA TODAY, Sept. 4,
2020.
341 S. 4591, § 101, 117th Cong. (2022).
342 Id. § 311.
343 Id. § 112.
344 Id. § 501.
345 Id. § 401.
346 Id. §§ 301-03.
347 See, e.g., Homegrown Act of 2021, H.R. 2649, 117th Cong. (2021); Common Sense Cannabis Reform for Veterans,
Small Businesses, and Medical Professionals Act, H.R. 3105, 117th Cong. (2021); see also Marijuana Justice Act of
2019, H.R. 1456, 116th Cong. (2019); S. 597, 116th Cong. (2019).
348 See 1 U.S.C. § 109; Hurwitz v. United States, 53 F.2d 552, 552 (D.C. Cir. 1931) (applying then-applicable federal
savings statute to prevent retroactive application of the repeal of a criminal law to a prosecution undertaken before the
repeal); see also S. David Mitchell, In With the Old, Out With the New: Expanding the Scope of Retroactive
Amelioration, 37 AM. J. CRIM. L. 1, 28-38 (2009).
349 Other legislative proposals from the 117th Congress would also have allowed for expungement or sealing of certain
federal marijuana convictions. See, e.g., Marijuana Misdemeanor Expungement Act, H.R. 8557, (2022); Clean Slate
Act of 2021, H.R. 2864, 117th Cong. (2021). Another proposal sought to facilitate expungement of state convictions.
See Harnessing Opportunities by Pursuing Expungement Act of 2021, H.R. 6129, 117th Cong. (2021). See also, e.g.,
Congressional Research Service
36

link to page 16 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

would not affect other existing statutes and regulations that apply to the drug and thus would not
bring aspects of the existing cannabis industry into compliance with federal laws such as the
FD&C Act.350 Third, Congress might enact new legislation affecting marijuana in conjunction
with any legislation removing it from the scope of the CSA. For instance, legislation introduced
during the 116th Congress would have imposed new federal regulations on marijuana akin to
those applicable to alcohol and tobacco.351 Fourth, reducing or removing federal restrictions on
marijuana might be inconsistent with certain treaty obligations of the United States.352 The
applicable treaties are not self-executing,353 meaning that they do not have the same status as
judicially enforceable domestic law.354 However, failure to abide by its treaty obligations could
expose the United States to diplomatic consequences.355

Marijuana Laws in America: Racial Justice and the Need for Reform: Hearing Before the House Comm. on the
Judiciary, 116th Cong. 12-13 (2019) (statement of Marilyn J. Mosby).
350 See Press Release, FDA, Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on Signing of the Agriculture
Improvement Act and the Agency’s Regulation of Products Containing Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived Compounds
(Dec. 20, 2018), https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-fda-commissioner-scott-gottlieb-
md-signing-agriculture-improvement-act-and-agencys; see also CRS In Focus IF11250, FDA Regulation of
Cannabidiol (CBD) Consumer Products, by Agata Bodie and Renée Johnson. Congress could also enact legislation to
alter FDA regulation of cannabis-based products. For example, the Legitimate Use of Medicinal Marihuana Act, H.R.
171, 116th Cong. (2019), would have provided that neither the CSA nor the FD&C Act “shall prohibit or otherwise
restrict” certain activities related to medical marijuana that are legal under state law.
351 See, e.g., Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act, H.R. 420, 116th Cong. (2019).
352 See supra “International Treaty Obligations.” The United States is a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic
Drugs of 1961 and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971. Both conventions require parties to impose
certain controls on cannabis. However, in December 2020, the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs voted to
remove some of the restrictions on cannabis under the 1961 Convention. See Press Release, United Nations
Commission on Narcotic Drugs, CND Votes on Recommendations for Cannabis and Cannabis-related
Substances (Dec. 2, 2020). Nonetheless, cannabis and its derivatives remain subject to restrictions under the
international drug control treaties that may be inconsistent with legalization of marijuana, particularly for recreational
purposes. Specifically, cannabis and cannabis resin remain in Schedule I of the 1961 Convention. United Nations
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, List of Drugs Included in Schedule I, Mar. 30, 1961, 18 U.S.T. 1407. The
1961 Convention also contains provisions imposing specific requirements on the cultivation of cannabis. Id. art. 28. In
addition, THC remains subject to control under the 1971 Convention. United Nations Convention on Psychotropic
Substances, List of Substances in Schedule I, Feb. 21, 1971, 32 U.S.T. 543.
353 The Supreme Court has held, “Only ‘[i]f the treaty contains stipulations which are self-executing, that is, require no
legislation to make them operative, [will] they have the force and effect of a legislative enactment.’” Medellin v. Texas,
552 U.S. 491, 505-06 (2008). Congress has made explicit findings that the Convention on Psychotropic Substances “is
not self-executing, and the obligations of the United States thereunder may only be performed pursuant to appropriate
legislation.” 21 U.S.C. § 801a(2). Because the enforcement provisions of the two treaties are similar, with neither
stating that it is self-executing, it appears the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is also not self-executing.
354 See Medellin, 552 U.S. at 527 (“A non-self-executing treaty, by definition, is one that was ratified with the
understanding that it is not to have domestic effect of its own force.”). For additional background on the legal effect of
self-executing and non-self-executing treaties, see CRS Report RL32528, International Law and Agreements: Their
Effect upon U.S. Law, by Stephen P. Mulligan, at 15.
355 See United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, art. 14, Mar. 30, 1961, 18 U.S.T. 1407 (authorizing
the Narcotics Control Board to recommend to treaty signatories that they stop the export or import of drugs to a
signatory country that violates the treaty or to publish a report on any matter related to enforcement of the treaty);
United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances, art. 19, Feb. 21, 1971, 32 U.S.T. 543 (same). Some
commentators have suggested that it is possible that state laws decriminalizing marijuana already conflict with the
United States’ obligations under the treaties. See Brian M. Blumenfeld, Pacta Sunt Servanda State Legislation of
Marijuana and Subnational Violations of International Treaties: A Historical Perspective, 46 PEPP. L. REV. 69, 94-101
(2018); Jonathan Remy Nash, Doubly Uncooperative Federalism and the Challenge of U.S. Treaty Compliance, 55
COLUM. J. TRANSNAT’L L. 3, 21-23 (2016).
Congressional Research Service
37

link to page 43 link to page 43 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

As an alternative to descheduling, some recent proposals would have maintained marijuana as a
controlled substance but moved it to a less restrictive schedule, potentially allowing it to be
dispensed by prescription for medical purposes.356 Congress could also continue to regulate
marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance subject to specific exceptions. For instance,
several legislative proposals during the 116th Congress would have left marijuana in Schedule I
but limited enforcement of federal marijuana law in states that have legalized marijuana.357 In the
117th Congress, the Small and Homestead Independent Producers Act of 2022 (H.R. 8825) would
have allowed shipment of marijuana within and between states that have legalized the
substance.358
Some recent proposals would have addressed specific legal consequences of marijuana’s
Schedule I status. For example, the SAFE Banking Act of 2021, which passed the House in April
2021, sought to protect depository institutions that provide financial services to cannabis-related
businesses from regulatory sanctions.359 Other proposals sought to ensure marijuana businesses’
access to insurance and other financial resources,360 facilitate federally approved clinical research
involving marijuana,361 or enable veterans to access information about or use medical
marijuana.362 Additional proposals would have removed collateral legal consequences of
marijuana-related activities for individuals in areas such as immigration,363 gun ownership,364 and
federally assisted housing.365
While most recent proposals would have relaxed federal regulation of marijuana, Congress could
also impose more stringent controls. For instance, one recent proposal would have prohibited the
use of benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant at any store that
offers marijuana for sale.366 Other proposals would seek to address the issues of marijuana
impairment in the workplace367 or driving under the influence of marijuana and other
substances.368

356 See, e.g., Marijuana 1-to-3 Act of 2021, H.R. 365, 117th Cong. (2012); Legitimate Use of Medicinal Marihuana Act,
H.R. 171, 116th Cong. (2019); Compassionate Access Act, H.R. 715, 115th Cong. (2017).
357 State Cannabis Commerce Act, H.R. 3546, 116th Cong. (2019); S. 2030, 116th Cong. (2019); Strengthening the
Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States Act (STATES Act), H.R. 2093, 116th Cong. (2019); S. 1028, 116th
Cong. (2019); Responsibly Addressing the Marijuana Policy Gap Act of 2019, H.R. 1119, 116th Cong. (2019); S. 421,
116th Cong. (2019).
358 H.R. 8825, 117th Cong. (2022).
359 H.R. 1996, 117th Cong. (2021); S. 910, 117th Cong (2021).
360 CLAIM Act, H.R. 2068, 117th Cong. (2021); Ensuring Safe Capital Access for All Small Businesses Act of 2021,
H.R. 2712, 117th Cong. (2021); CLIMB Act, H.R. 8200, 117th Cong. (2022); see also Ensuring Access to Counseling
and Training for All Small Businesses Act of 2019, H.R. 3543, 116th Cong. (2019).
361 See, e.g., Developing and Nationalizing Key Cannabis Research Act of 2022, H.R. 8540, 117th Cong. (2022);
Medical Marijuana Research Act, H.R. 5657, 117th Cong. (2021). See also infra “Clinical Research and Use of
Schedule I Substances.”
362 See, e.g., Veterans Equal Access Act, H.R. 8197, 117th Cong. (2022); Fully Informed Veteran Act of 2021, H.R.
3601, 117th Cong. (2021); Veterans Medical Marijuana Safe Harbor Act, H.R. 2588, 117th Cong. (2021); Veterans
Cannabis Use for Safe Healing Act, H.R. 430, 117th Cong. (2021).
363 Destigmatizing in Immigration Act, H.R. 1614, 117th Cong. (2021).
364 Gun Rights And Marijuana Act, H.R. 2830, 117th Cong. (2021).
365 Marijuana in Federally Assisted Housing Parity Act of 2021, H.R. 3212, 117th Cong. (2021).
366 Welfare for Needs not Weed Act, H.R. 4536 117th Cong. (2021).
367 H.R. 8591, 117th Cong. (2022).
368 Drug-Impaired Driving Education Act of 2021, H.R. 3675, 117th Cong. (2021); Impaired Driving Study Act of
2021, H.R. 3253, 117th Cong. (2021).
Congressional Research Service
38

link to page 34 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

Clinical Research and Use of Schedule I Substances
Another issue that received significant attention during the 117th Congress was the possibility
that certain Schedule I controlled substances, especially marijuana and psilocybin, may have
medical benefits. As a legal matter, Schedule I status limits researchers’ ability to conduct clinical
research involving these substances and patients’ ability to access such substances for medical
purposes. Because substances in Schedule I have no accepted medical use under the CSA, it is
only legal to produce, dispense, and possess those substances in the context of federally approved
scientific studies.369 In addition, federal law limits the use of federal funding for such research: a
rider to the appropriations law for FY2023 provides that no appropriated funds may be used “for
any activity that promotes the legalization of any drug or other substance included in schedule I”
of the CSA, except “when there is significant medical evidence of a therapeutic advantage to the
use of such drug or other substance or ... federally sponsored clinical trials are being conducted to
determine therapeutic advantage.”370
Schedule I status under the CSA raises two key legal issues related to medical use and clinical
research. First, some commentators have expressed concerns that the CSA places too many
restrictions on research involving controlled substances, particularly Schedule I controlled
substances that might have a legitimate medical use.371 Barriers to research may make it difficult
both to harness potential medical benefits of those substances and to disprove possible false
claims of benefits that may pose a public health risk.
Second, there is a growing gulf between federal and state law with respect to Schedule I
controlled substances with potential medical benefits. The gap between federal and state
regulation of medical and recreational marijuana is discussed in greater detail above.372 But, more
recently, it appears that a gap may be developing with respect to other Schedule I substances. On
November 3, 2020, voters in Oregon approved a ballot measure authorizing the use of psilocybin
for medical purposes under state law.373 The same day, District of Columbia voters passed a ballot
measure deprioritizing the enforcement of criminal prohibitions on certain psychedelic plants and
fungi.374 On November 8, 2022, voters in Colorado approved a ballot initiative legalizing the use
of psilocybin and certain other substances by adults 21 or over and providing for the

369 See 21 U.S.C. § 823(f); see also Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2004).
370 P.L. 117-328, div. H, § 509.
371 See, e.g., Michael H. Andreae, et al., An Ethical Exploration of Barriers to Research on Controlled Drugs, AM. J.
BIOETH. 5-6 (Apr. 2016), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4849133/pdf/nihms-778176.pdf.
372 See supra “Federal and State Marijuana Regulation.”
373 See Lizzy Acker, Oregon Becomes First State to Legalize Psychedelic Mushrooms, OREGONIAN, Nov. 3, 2020.
Through a separate ballot measure, Oregonians voted to decriminalize possession of small amounts of certain Schedule
I and II controlled substances, including cocaine, heroin, oxycodone and methamphetamines. See Cleve R. Wootson Jr.
and Jaclyn Peiser, Oregon Decriminalizes Possession of Hard Drugs, as Four Other States Legalize Recreational
Marijuana, WASH. POST, Nov. 4, 2020.
374 See Justin Wm. Moyer, D.C. Voters Approve Ballot Question to Decriminalize Psychedelic Mushrooms, WASH.
POST, Nov. 3, 2020. The D.C. ballot measure does not repeal criminal laws related to psychedelic plants and fungi but
rather provides that prosecution for the use and sale of such substances shall be “among the Metropolitan Police
Department’s lowest law enforcement priorities.” Id. The ballot measure appears to have been tailored to comply with a
federal appropriations rider that prohibits the District of Columbia from expending any federal funds “to enact or carry
out any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or
distribution of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act[.]” P.L. 116-93 Div. C, § 909, 133 Stat.
2317 (2019). The District of Columbia measure is not limited to medicinal use but was motivated in part by the
possibility that psychedelic substances may provide medical benefits. See Justin Wm. Moyer, D.C. Voters to Weigh in
on ‘Magic Mushroom’ Decriminalization After Months-long Campaign, WASH. POST, Oct. 8, 2020.
Congressional Research Service
39

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

establishment of centers for the therapeutic use of psilocybin and psilocyn.375 As with state
marijuana laws, these changes in D.C. and state law do not alter the status of the affected
Schedule I controlled substances under the federal CSA.376
In recent years, Congress has enacted legislation designed to facilitate research involving
marijuana while also retaining strict controls over the substance. For over 50 years, DEA
registered one farm in the United States to legally produce marijuana for research purposes, and
researchers complained that marijuana from that source was deficient in both quality and
quantity.377 In 2015, Congress passed the Improving Regulatory Transparency for New Medical
Therapies Act, which imposed deadlines on DEA to issue notice of each application to
manufacture Schedule I substances for research and then act on the application.378 Following
years of delay and related court challenges,379 DEA published a notice in the Federal Register in
August 2019 announcing the agency’s intent to promulgate regulations governing the
manufacture of marijuana for research purposes.380 It also provided notice of the 33 applications
DEA had received to manufacture Schedule I controlled substances for research purposes, and
stated that DEA would review all pending applications and grant “the number that the agency
determines is necessary to ensure an adequate and uninterrupted supply of the controlled
substances at issue under adequately competitive conditions.”381
In December 2020, DEA issued a final rule governing registration for bulk marijuana
manufacturers.382 The final rule provides that the DEA Administrator “may grant an application
for a registration to manufacture marihuana ... only if he determines that such registration is
consistent with the public interest” and with U.S. treaty obligations.383 The rule further provides
that “[a]ll registered manufacturers who cultivate cannabis shall deliver their total crops of
cannabis” to DEA, and the agency “shall purchase and take physical possession of such crops as
soon as possible” and “have the exclusive right of importing, exporting, wholesale trading, and
maintaining stocks [of cannabis] other than those held by registered manufacturers and
distributors of medicinal cannabis or cannabis preparations.”384 The rule also allows DEA to
delegate some of its responsibilities, such as storage and trading of cannabis, to “appropriately
registered persons.”385 After issuing the final rule, DEA began to issue registrations to additional
manufacturers. As of January 2023, DEA has registered seven marijuana manufacturers.386

375 See Danica Jefferies, Colorado Just Legalized ‘Magic Mushrooms,’ an Idea That’s Growing Nationwide, CNBC
(Nov. 12, 2022).
376 See CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10482, State Marijuana “Legalization” and Federal Drug Law: A Brief Overview for
Congress, by Joanna R. Lampe.
377 See Pet. for Writ of Mandamus at 13-15, In re Scottsdale Research Inst., No. 19-1120 (D.C. Cir. June 6, 2019).
378 P.L. 114-89, 129 Stat.703 (2015); 21 U.S.C. § 823(i)(2). “Manufacturing” of controlled substances includes growing
marijuana. See, e.g., DEA, Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Applications: Bulk Manufacturers of
Marihuana, 84 Fed. Reg. 44,920 (Aug. 27, 2019) [hereinafter, DEA Notice].
379 See generally Pet. for Writ of Mandamus, In re Scottsdale Research Inst., No. 19-1120 (D.C. Cir. June 6, 2019).
380 DEA Notice at 44,921.
381 Id.
382 See DEA, Controls To Enhance the Cultivation of Marihuana for Research in the United States, 85 Fed. Reg.
82,333 (Dec. 18, 2020).
383 Id. at 82,353.
384 Id.
385 Id.
386 DEA, Marihuana Growers Information, https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugreg/marihuana.htm (last visited
Jan. 3, 2022)
Congressional Research Service
40

link to page 43 link to page 43 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

On December 2, 2022, President Biden signed into law the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol
Research Expansion Act, which aimed to ease requirements for research involving marijuana and
CBD.387 Among other things, the Act created specialized, expedited procedures for DEA approval
of marijuana research and manufacture of marijuana for research purposes.388
Other proposals during the 117th Congress sought to facilitate federally approved clinical
research involving marijuana389 or enable veterans to access information about or use medical
marijuana.390 Congress could also legislate more broadly to facilitate research involving
controlled substances. For example, a proposed amendment to an appropriations bill for FY2022
would have eliminated the appropriations rider restricting the use of federal funding to promote
the legalization of Schedule I substances.391 That amendment was intended to facilitate research
involving not only marijuana but also psilocybin, MDMA, and other Schedule I drugs that might
have legitimate medical uses.392
Telehealth Services
The spread of COVID-19 in the United States beginning in early 2020 altered the daily lives of
millions of Americans and raised a wide range of legal issues.393 One area where the pandemic
has had a lasting effect on the CSA’s regulatory framework is the practice of telemedicine.394
As the COVID-19 pandemic limited individuals’ ability or desire to seek medical care in person,
the demand for telehealth services increased.395 However, the CSA limits the circumstances in
which health care providers may prescribe controlled substances via telemedicine. The CSA
provides that most pharmaceutical controlled substances may be dispensed only pursuant to a
valid prescription,396 and a valid prescription must generally be predicated on an in-person

387 P.L. 117-215 (2022).
388 For additional discussion of the Act, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10859, Recent Developments in Marijuana Law,
by Joanna R. Lampe.
389 See, e.g., Developing and Nationalizing Key Cannabis Research Act of 2022, H.R. 8540, 117th Cong. (2022);
Medical Marijuana Research Act, H.R. 5657, 117th Cong. (2021). See also infra “Clinical Research and Use of
Schedule I Substances.”
390 See, e.g., Veterans Equal Access Act, H.R. 8197, 117th Cong. (2022); Fully Informed Veteran Act of 2021, H.R.
3601, 117th Cong. (2021); Veterans Medical Marijuana Safe Harbor Act, H.R. 2588, 117th Cong. (2021); Veterans
Cannabis Use for Safe Healing Act, H.R. 430, 117th Cong. (2021).
391 H.Amdt. 85, 117th Cong. (2021). The amendment was not adopted.
392 See 166 Cong. Rec. H4074 (2021) (statement of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) (stating that the appropriations
rider “has, for a very long period of time, prevented and acted as a barricade to Federal research on certain
substances—such as psilocybin, MDMA, and marijuana—in allowing us to research the applications and potential
therapeutic applications of these drugs in the treatment of diseases such as PTSD, addiction, and depression.”).
393 See CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10433, Legal Issues Related to the COVID-19 Outbreak: An Overview, coordinated by
Caitlain Devereaux Lewis. For discussion of DEA’s role in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, see CRS Insight
IN11321, COVID-19: The Drug Enforcement Administration’s Regulatory Role, by Lisa N. Sacco.
394 Telemedicine is also subject to regulation under legal authorities other than the CSA. See CRS Report R46239,
Telehealth and Telemedicine: Frequently Asked Questions, by Victoria L. Elliott.
395 Lisa M. Koonin, et al., Trends in the Use of Telehealth During the Emergence of the COVID-19 Pandemic —
United States, January–March 2020, MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY WEEKLY REPORT, Oct. 30, 2020.
396 21 U.S.C. § 829. The CSA does not mandate that Schedule V controlled substances be distributed by prescription,
but such substances may be dispensed only “for a medical purpose.” Id. § 829(c). As a practical matter, Schedule V
substances are almost always dispensed pursuant to a prescription due to separate requirements under the FD&C Act or
state law. Cf, e.g., Ga. Code Ann. § 16-13-29.2 (permitting the State Board of Pharmacy to allow the sale of Schedule
V controlled substances without a prescription); Fl. Stat. Ann. § 893.08 (permitting the sale of Schedule V controlled
substances over-the-counter by a registered pharmacist, if a prescription is not required under the FD&C Act).
Congressional Research Service
41

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

medical evaluation.397 A practitioner who has previously evaluated a patient in person may
prescribe the patient a controlled substance via telemedicine.398 By contrast, a practitioner who
has not evaluated a patient in person may prescribe controlled substances via telemedicine only in
more limited circumstances, including at the request of a practitioner who has conducted an in-
person evaluation when that practitioner is unavailable, when a patient is being treated in a CSA-
registered facility, when the practitioner has obtained a special telemedicine registration from
DEA, during a medical emergency situation, or during a public health emergency.399
With respect to the last option, the CSA authorizes the use of telemedicine during a public health
emergency declared by the HHS Secretary under Section 319 of the Public Health Service Act400
when the practice “involves patients located in such areas, and such controlled substances, as the
[HHS] Secretary, with the concurrence of the Attorney General, designates.”401 On January 31,
2020, the HHS Secretary issued a determination that a public health emergency exists under the
Public Health Service Act “[a]s a result of confirmed cases of 2019 Novel Coronavirus.”402
Subsequently, citing the CSA’s exception for telehealth services during a declared public health
emergency, DEA issued guidance on its website authorizing the use of telemedicine to prescribe
“all schedule II-V controlled substances in all areas of the United States.”403 Thus, subject to
applicable federal and state laws and other conditions,404 from March 16, 2020, until the
expiration of the public health emergency related to COVID-19, DEA-registered practitioners
anywhere in the United States may prescribe any pharmaceutical controlled substance via
telemedicine without conducting an in-person medical evaluation.405
Numerous proposals before the 116th and 117th Congresses sought to increase access to
telehealth care during the COVID-19 pandemic or maintain advances in telemedicine after the
pandemic ends. For instance, the Telehealth Extension and Evaluation Act would have extended
expanded access to telehealth services for two years after the expiration of the COVID-19
emergency declaration.406 The Telehealth Act, introduced in the 116th Congress, would have

397 21 U.S.C. § 829(e).
398 21 U.S.C. § 829(e)(2); see also DEA, COVID-19 Information Page,
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/coronavirus.html (accessed Dec. 2, 2020).
399 21 U.S.C. §§ 829(e)(2), 802(54).
400 42 U.S.C. § 247d.
401 21 U.S.C. § 802(54)(D). The statute provides that “such designation shall not be subject to the procedures prescribed
by subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5,” i.e., the APA. Id. § 802(54)(D)(ii).
402 Alex M. Azar II, Determination that a Public Health Emergency Exists (Jan. 31, 2020),
https://www.phe.gov/emergency/news/healthactions/phe/Pages/2019-nCoV.aspx. The determination has been renewed
multiple times, most recently in January 2023. Alex M. Azar II, Renewal of Determination that a Public Health
Emergency Exists (Jan. 11, 2023), https://aspr.hhs.gov/legal/PHE/Pages/covid19-11Jan23.aspx.
403 DEA, COVID-19 Information Page, https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/coronavirus.html (accessed Jan. 6, 2023).
404 The applicable conditions for the use of telemedicine to prescribe controlled substances during the current public
health emergency are: (1) the prescription is “issued for a legitimate medical purpose by a practitioner acting in the
usual course of his/her professional practice,” (2) the “telemedicine communication is conducted using an audio-visual,
real-time, two-way interactive communication system,” and (3) the prescribing practitioner is acting in accordance with
applicable federal and State laws.
405 DEA specifically noted: “If the prescribing practitioner has previously conducted an in-person medical evaluation of
the patient, the practitioner may issue a prescription for a controlled substance after having communicated with the
patient via telemedicine, or any other means, regardless of whether a public health emergency has been declared by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, so long as the prescription is issued for a legitimate medical purpose and the
practitioner is acting in the usual course of his/her professional practice. In addition, for the prescription to be valid, the
practitioner must comply with applicable Federal and State laws.”
406 S. 3593, 117th Cong. (2022); H.R. 7573, 117th Cong. (2022).
Congressional Research Service
42

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

allowed practitioners to prescribe controlled substances in Schedule III or Schedule IV based on a
telehealth visit.407 A number of other legislative proposals in the 116th and 117th Congresses
sought to address regulation of telemedicine outside the scope of the CSA.408 If similar proposals
are introduced in the 118th Congress, legislators may consider whether they would affect the
prescribing of controlled substances via telemedicine and whether they should include specific
provisions related to the CSA.
Cocaine Sentencing
The 117th Congress also saw significant legal developments related to sentencing for cocaine
offenses under the CSA.409 Congress placed cocaine in Schedule II when it enacted the CSA in
1970.410 The CSA as enacted did not distinguish between powder and crack cocaine. However, in
response to concerns about a “crack epidemic” in the mid-1980s, Congress amended the CSA in
1986 to impose mandatory minimum sentences for certain offenses involving cocaine.411 While
the minimum sentences applied to both powder and crack cocaine, the amount of each substance
required to trigger the mandatory minimum varied by a ratio of 100 to 1.412 Offenses involving
smaller amounts or an unspecified amount of cocaine (whether powder or crack) were also
subject to criminal penalties but did not carry a mandatory minimum prison term.
After the 1986 legislation was enacted, some commentators and stakeholders raised concerns that
the disparity between the thresholds for powder and crack cocaine was too great and that crack
offenders were disproportionately Black, creating a “perception of unfairness.”413 In response,
Congress enacted the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which, among other things, raised the amounts
of crack required to trigger mandatory minimum sentences, reducing the disparity between the
thresholds for powder and crack cocaine to a ratio of approximately 18 to 1.414 The Fair
Sentencing Act applied to future cases and cases that were pending on the date of enactment but
did not apply to cases in which a sentence had already been imposed.

407 H.R. 7992, 116th Cong. (2020). Legislative proposals to reform CSA regulation of telemedicine are not limited to
addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, the METH Addiction Act, S. 2244, 116th Cong. (2019), would have
amended the CSA to allow community addiction treatment facilities and community mental health facilities to register
to dispense controlled substances through the practice of telemedicine. See also Improving Access to Remote
Behavioral Health Treatment Act of 2019, H.R. 4131, 116th Cong. (2019).
408 See, e.g., Ensuring Telehealth Expansion Act of 2021, H.R. 341, 117th Cong. (2021); Telehealth Expansion Act of
2021, H.R. 5981, 117th Cong. (2021); S. 1704, 117th Cong. (2021); Greater Access to Telehealth Act, H.R. 8489,
117th Cong. (2022); Advancing Telehealth Beyond COVID–19 Act of 2021, H.R. 4040. 117th Cong. (2021); Mental
Health Telemedicine Expansion Act, H.R. 1301, 116th Cong. (2019); VA Mission Telehealth Clarification Act, S.
3643, 116th Cong. (2020); Telehealth Modernization Act, H.R. 8727, 116th Cong. (2020).
409 For additional discussion of cocaine sentencing under the CSA, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10611, Crack Cocaine
Offenses and the First Step Act of 2018: Overview and Implications of Terry v. United States, by Michael A. Foster and
Joanna R. Lampe; CRS In Focus IF11965, Cocaine: Crack and Powder Sentencing Disparities, by Lisa N. Sacco and
Kristin Finklea.
410 Pub. L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236 (1970).
411 P.L. 99-70, 100 Stat. 3207-2 (1986).
412 For example, offenses involving 5 kilograms of cocaine powder or 50 grams of cocaine base (i.e., crack) carried a
mandatory 10-year sentence, and offenses involving 500 grams of cocaine powder or 5 grams of cocaine base carried a
mandatory five-year sentence.
413 Terry v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1858, 1861 (2021) (quoting USSC, Special Report to the Congress: Cocaine and
Federal Sentencing Policy 195-197 (Feb. 1995)).
414 P.L. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2373 (2010); see also 21 U.S.C. § 841.
Congressional Research Service
43

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

In 2018, Congress enacted the First Step Act, which made the Fair Sentencing Act’s changes to
crack sentences retroactive and permitted persons convicted and sentenced prior to passage of the
Fair Sentencing Act to seek resentencing.415 The First Step Act applied to any “covered offense,”
defined in part as “a violation of a Federal criminal statute, the statutory penalties for which were
modified by” the Fair Sentencing Act provision that altered the crack-to-powder ratio for
purposes of the relevant CSA offenses.416
Federal courts divided on the question of which statutory penalties were “modified by” the Fair
Sentencing Act such that an offense subject to such penalties would constitute a “covered
offense” and specifically whether offenders convicted under the lowest tier prior to changes made
by the Fair Sentencing Act could seek retroactive resentencing.417 The Supreme Court resolved
the split in a 2021 decision in Terry v. United States.418 In Terry, the Court concluded
unanimously that the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify the statutory penalties for cocaine
offenses under the lowest penalty tier.419 That holding means that crack offenders convicted prior
to enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act may not seek resentencing if they were not subject to a
mandatory minimum sentence.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Terry, Members of the 117th Congress considered
whether to expand resentencing opportunities for crack offenses committed before the enactment
of the Fair Sentencing Act. It appears that at least some Members of Congress who supported the
First Step Act intended the legislation to reach broadly and encompass all crack offenders.420
Additionally, some commentators have argued that it would be incongruous or arbitrary to allow
resentencing for individuals convicted of offenses involving large amounts of crack while leaving
in place sentences involving smaller amounts of the substance.421
More generally, the 117th Congress considered whether to alter or eliminate the disparity in
sentencing thresholds between crack and powder cocaine. Congress originally imposed lower
quantity thresholds for crack offenses based on concerns that crack was cheaper, more potent,
more addictive, and overall more dangerous than other forms of cocaine.422 Some stakeholders
argue that the current 18-to-1 ratio is not justified on scientific or public safety grounds and
disproportionately affects Black offenders.423 If Congress elected to modify the threshold amounts

415 P.L. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018).
416 Id. § 404.
417 Compare United States v. Smith, 954 F. 3d 446, 450 (1st Cir. 2020) and United States v. Woodson, 962 F. 3d 812,
816 (4th Cir. 2020) with United States v. Birt, 966 F. 3d 257, 264 (4th Cir. 2020).
418 141 S. Ct. 1858.
419 Id. at 1860.
420 For instance, four Senators who were lead sponsors and drafters of the 2018 legislation filed an amicus brief in
Terry, arguing that the First Step Act “authorizes relief to everyone who had been sentenced for crack-cocaine offenses
before the Fair Sentencing Act became effective, including individuals with low-level crack offenses” that did not carry
mandatory minimum sentences. Br. of Amici Curiae Sens. Durbin, Grassley, Booker, and Lee, Terry v. United States,
No. 20-5904 (Feb. 19, 2021).
421 See, e.g., Br. of Amius Curiae Ams. for Prosperity Foundation 20, Terry v. United States, No. 20-5904 (Feb. 19,
2021); Ekow Yankah, Unanimous Ruling on Crack-Cocaine Disparity is Heavy on Text, Light on History,
SCOTUSBLOG (June 16, 2021), https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/unanimous-ruling-on-crack-cocaine-disparity-is-
heavy-on-text-light-on-history/.
422 USSC, COCAINE AND FEDERAL SENTENCING POLICY 9 (May 2002).
423 See, e.g., Press Release, Nat’l Dist. Attys Assoc., Nation’s Largest Prosecutor Organization Endorses Ending the
Disparity in Sentencing Between Crack and Powder Cocaine (Feb. 24, 2021).
Congressional Research Service
44

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress

that trigger mandatory minimum sentences under the CSA, it could also consider whether those
changes should apply retroactively.
A proposal before the 117th Congress entitled the Eliminating a Quantifiably Unjust Application
of the Law Act (EQUAL Act) sought to address both the retroactivity question presented in Terry
and the sentencing disparity.424 With respect to the sentencing disparity between crack and
powder cocaine, the EQUAL Act would have repealed the CSA provisions that impose mandatory
minimum sentences for offenses involving crack.425 Because crack also falls within the broader
category of cocaine, certain crack offenses would remain subject to mandatory minimum
sentences. However, the quantity of crack required to trigger a mandatory minimum sentence
would no longer be lower than the quantity of other forms of cocaine. With respect to
retroactivity, the EQUAL Act would have authorized resentencing of any “defendant who, before
the date of enactment of [the EQUAL] Act, was convicted or sentenced for a Federal offense
involving cocaine base.”426 That language appears to include offenders who were convicted of
crack offenses that did not carry mandatory minimum sentences.

Author Information

Joanna R. Lampe

Legislative Attorney

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

424 S. 79, 117th Cong. (2021); H.R. 1693, 117th Cong. (2021).
425 Id. § 2(a), (b).
426 Id. § 2(c)(2).
Congressional Research Service
R45948 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED
45

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Jan. 19, 2023

HTML · PDF

6% changed

Feb. 5, 2021

HTML · PDF

28% changed

Oct. 9, 2019

HTML · PDF

Metadata