What School Boards Need to Know About Marijuana Rescheduling
What School Boards Need to Know About Marijuana Rescheduling
Florida’s school boards have long occupied an unenviable position at the intersection of state medical marijuana law and federal drug-free workplace requirements. That tension reached a breaking point with the United States Attorney General’s April 2026 limited rescheduling of some, but not all, marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance. The medicinal use of marijuana by Florida school board employees (teachers, administrators, custodians, and support staff alike) is no longer automatically barred under federal law, and districts statewide are scrambling to interpret the new regulations and adopt implementing policies. For boards that long relied on the simplicity of a blanket prohibition to protect federal funding, the rescheduling ushers in a new era of complexity and legal risk.
I. Background: Federal Funding and the Drug-Free Workplace Act
Florida’s sixty-seven school districts receive billions of dollars annually in federal grant funding through programs including Title I, Title II, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), and others. As a condition of these funds, each district must certify compliance with the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (DFWA).[1] In short, the DFWA requires employers to notify employees that illegal drugs are not allowed at work, provide education about drug-free workplace rules, require employees to follow those rules as a condition of employment, and report certain workplace drug convictions to the federal agency providing the grant.
The employer’s certification is a “material representation of fact upon which reliance is placed when the Federal agency awards the grant.”[2] A knowingly false certification or DFWA violation may result in suspension of payments, termination of the grant, or government-wide debarment. For school boards, the stakes are high: a loss of federal funding could be catastrophic, affecting teacher salaries, special education services, and school lunch programs.
This funding imperative drove Florida school boards to adopt and vigorously enforce zero-tolerance drug-free workplace policies that made no exception for employees holding valid Florida medical marijuana cards. The logic was straightforward: because marijuana was a Schedule I controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA)[3], its use, even when authorized by Florida law, remained “unlawful” federally. Accommodating such use, school boards argued, would jeopardize their DFWA certifications and the federal grants on which they depended.
II. A History of Hard Choices: Schedule I and the Termination of Qualified Patients
For over fifty years, THC (the primary psychoactive cannabinoid in the cannabis plant) was listed as a Schedule I controlled substance. A Schedule I substance is one that: (1) has a high potential for abuse; (2) has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and (3) lacks accepted safety for use under medical supervision. The “lack of medicinal use” designation has been hotly contested, and many states, including Florida, have authorized the medicinal use of marijuana.
In 2016, Florida voters amended the Florida Constitution to allow medicinal marijuana use by qualifying patients. The amendment, however, contains critical limitations: nothing in it “[a]llows for a violation of any law other than for conduct in compliance with the provisions of this section,” nor does it “[r]equire[] the violation of federal law or purport[] to give immunity under federal law.”[4] Accordingly, employers, including school boards, were not required to accommodate the medicinal use of marijuana because it violated the federal CSA, and was therefore illegal under federal law.
III. The Rescheduling: From Schedule I to Schedule III
On December 18, 2025, the President issued an executive order to expand medical marijuana and cannabidiol research.[5] The order recognized: (1) a 2023 study by the Food and Drug Administration that found scientific support for its use to treat some medical conditions and symptoms; (2) that forty states, plus the District of Columbia, have regulated medical marijuana programs; (3) that decades of federal drug control policy have neglected marijuana’s medical uses; and (4) that this oversight has limited research on safety and efficacy, thereby limiting doctors’ and patients’ access to informed guidance. In addition to the FDA’s findings, both the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institute on Drug Abuse recommended rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III.
On April 22, 2026, in furtherance of the President’s executive order and his administration’s policy directive, the Acting Attorney General issued the final rule[6] rescheduling FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana to Schedule III of the CSA. A Schedule III substance is one that: (1) has a potential for abuse less than substances in Schedules I and II; (2) has a currently accepted medical use in the United States; and (3) abuse may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.
The rescheduling applies to marijuana products outside the definition of hemp, but only to the extent included in an FDA-approved drug product or subject to a state-issued license to manufacture, distribute, or dispense marijuana for medical purposes. This limited rescheduling carries several important consequences for school board operations and employers.
Critically, marijuana and related products that are not FDA-approved or obtained through Florida’s medical marijuana framework remain classified as Schedule I controlled substances. The prohibition on the possession, use, or distribution of non-medical marijuana products remains fully intact, and school boards may continue enforcing their drug-free workplace policies against employees who use those products procured outside Florida’s medical marijuana program without any change in the legal analysis.
IV. The Employment Landscape: What Has Changed for School Boards
From an employment standpoint, the limited rescheduling significantly changes the medical marijuana landscape for school boards and raises numerous questions. At the outset, it is critical to note that the change applies only to employees who are qualified patients holding a current medical marijuana card. Employees who test positive for THC in random or post-accident tests, but who do not hold such a card should continue to be treated as they were prior to the change, consistent with existing drug-free workplace policies. Equally unchanged is the handling of employees who test positive as a result of a test issued upon reasonable suspicion that the employee is impaired at work.
However, if an employee is lawfully using marijuana pursuant to Florida’s medical marijuana framework and tests positive for THC, the inquiry becomes a fact-specific one of impairment rather than the mere presence of THC. This is because the lawful off-duty use of medical marijuana under Florida’s framework is no longer unlawful under federal law. Although the use of medical marijuana by school board employees is now lawful, must the school board permit the use of medical marijuana? The answer is not yet clear, but could very well be yes under some circumstances.
V. The ADA Question: From Blanket Denials to the Interactive Process
Perhaps the most consequential implication of the rescheduling for school boards lies in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA expressly excludes employees “currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs” from its protections.[7] This allowed school boards to adopt across-the-board denials of accommodation requests related to medical marijuana use without liability under the ADA or Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and without conducting further case-specific inquiries. Because Schedule I marijuana was categorically “illegal” under federal law, courts consistently held that employers were not required to accommodate medical marijuana use under the ADA.
The recent rescheduling fundamentally alters this analysis. Lawfully obtained medical marijuana, now reclassified under Schedule III, is no longer categorically “illegal” federally, and the ADA’s “illegal use of drugs” exclusion no longer applies to employees using medical marijuana in compliance with Florida’s medical marijuana program. School boards therefore can no longer issue blanket denials of accommodation requests from employees who are qualified patients under Florida’s program. Instead, employers must now treat such a request like any other accommodation request and engage in the interactive process. Failing to do so on a case-by-case basis may result in liability under federal and state law.
To enjoy the protections of the ADA and Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, an employee must be a qualified individual with a disability. In other words, they must be able to perform the essential requirements of their job with or without reasonable accommodation. Not all requests are “reasonable,” and the interactive process is necessary for the employer to evaluate the reasonableness of the request. An employer may deny a request for accommodation only if, after engaging in the interactive process, the request constitutes an undue burden or the employee is unable to perform each and every essential requirement of the job even with the accommodation. The analysis varies by job, assignment, duties, staffing, employee count, and numerous other factors.
As a threshold matter, school boards are not required to accommodate on-duty or on-site medical marijuana use. Employers are not required to accommodate impaired employees in the workplace under the guise of a “reasonable” accommodation. The Florida Constitution reinforces this, providing that nothing in the medical marijuana amendment “shall require any accommodation of any on-site medical use of marijuana in any correctional institution or detention facility or place of education or employment, or of smoking medical marijuana in any public place.”[8] The phrase “place of education” gives school boards an express constitutional basis to prohibit on-site use in schools and school facilities.
Nothing in this limitation, however, precludes the off-duty use of medical marijuana by employees so long as the employee is not impaired on duty. Accommodation of off-duty use may be an undue burden in some circumstances, but the determination is highly fact-specific. A district may, for example, have sufficient staffing to accommodate short-term use by a teacher or a staff member that prevents after-hours call-outs for a limited duration. Conversely, a board may not be able to accommodate the permanent unavailability of a coach, school resource officer, or administrator whose essential duties include routine after-hours availability.
In the school board context, accommodation analysis often involves considerations unique to educational settings. Teachers supervising students, bus drivers transporting children, and employees operating machinery require particularly careful evaluation, because student and public safety are paramount.
VI. Practical Guidance for Florida School Boards
School boards faced with employee requests for accommodations related to medical marijuana use should avoid blanket responses and instead engage in a thoughtful, individualized interactive process with the employee, in consultation with board or district counsel. The inquiry should focus on whether the employee can perform the essential functions of the position safely and effectively, whether reasonable alternatives or accommodations are available, and whether off-duty medical marijuana use can be addressed in a manner consistent with workplace safety, district policy, and applicable state and federal law. Of course, school boards should document every step of the interactive process meticulously. In litigation, a board’s ability to demonstrate that it engaged in a good-faith interactive process will be critical to its defense.
School boards should also review their existing drug-free workplace policies and, in conjunction with district or local counsel, revise them to reflect the current state of the law on lawful medical marijuana use by school personnel.
Proactive policy development and careful review of existing drug-free workplace practices will better position school boards to respond consistently, and lawfully, as accommodation requests related to medical marijuana inevitably arise. As the legal landscape evolves, thoughtful, individualized decision-making can help reduce potential legal exposure under the ADA and Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, while also supporting the recruitment and retention of qualified educators and staff.
[1] 41 U.S.C. §§ 8101–8106; 2 C.F.R. Part 182.
[2] Federal Register Vol. 55, No. 102, Friday, May 25, 1990.
[3] 21 U.S.C. § 812(c)(c)(17).
[4] Fla. Const. art. X, § 29.
[5] Exec. Order No. 14,370, Increasing Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research, (Dec. 18, 2025).
[6] AG Order No. 6754-2026, Rescheduling of Food and Drug Administration Approved Products Containing Marijuana From Schedule I to Schedule III (2026).
[7] 42 U.S. Code § 12114(a).
[8] Fla. Const. art. X, § 29(c)(6)
