Effective April 28, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice and the federal Drug Enforcement Administration placed marijuana subject to a qualifying state medical marijuana license into Schedule III, while making clear that broader marijuana legalization has not occurred and that marijuana outside those qualifying channels remains subject to stricter federal control. Pennsylvania colleges should not treat the federal government’s recent marijuana reclassification as a green light to allow medical marijuana on campus. But institutions also should not assume that older policy language stating that marijuana is illegal under federal law remains fully accurate in every respect.
This development matters for Pennsylvania colleges because it affects not only student-facing policies, but also employment practices, disability accommodation procedures, drug-testing protocols, and communications with campus leadership. For many institutions, the most important point is this: the federal rule is a meaningful legal shift, but it is not a wholesale authorization for colleges to permit any and all marijuana use. Instead, federal higher education compliance obligations remain in place, and the legal issues now require more nuance than many existing policies reflect.
What Changed?
Under the new federal rule, medical marijuana authorized under state laws, such as the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act, is now considered use of a Schedule III controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substance Act (CSA). Previously, all forms of marijuana, including use authorized under state laws, were considered Schedule I controlled substances, meaning that federal law viewed marijuana use as extremely dangerous and there was no acceptable medical use for marijuana. Now, though, marijuana is considered a Schedule III substance, like many other forms of prescription medications, such as prescription opioids or benzodiazepines. That said, recreational use of marijuana remains illegal.
That distinction is critical for colleges. The old shorthand statement that “marijuana is federally illegal in all forms” is no longer fully correct. At the same time, the federal Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act regulations still require institutions receiving federal funds to adopt and implement programs to prevent the unlawful possession, use, or distribution of illicit drugs and alcohol, and higher education guidance issued after the DOJ action has advised campuses to consult counsel regarding the immediate effect of the reclassification on campus drug policies.
Just as important, the federal rule does not apply to recreational marijuana use. Instead, it is limited to FDA-approved marijuana products and marijuana dispensed through a qualifying state medical marijuana licensing system. Recreational marijuana therefore remains outside the new Schedule III framework, and colleges may continue to prohibit recreational marijuana use and possession under their student and employee policies. Also, the FDA has not yet approved any naturally derived THC products, and has only approved a naturally derived CBD medication and other synthetic medications. In addition, Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act does not authorize smoked marijuana; the Act expressly makes it unlawful to smoke medical marijuana. As such, only qualifying state medical marijuana products are currently permissible, and colleges therefore may continue to prohibit all forms of smoked marijuana on campus, including in student residences.
Why Pennsylvania Law Matters
Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act, enacted in 2016, established a state medical marijuana program administered by the Department of Health. The statute authorizes practitioners to certify patients, provides for patient identification cards, makes certified medical use lawful within the Commonwealth, and creates a licensed system of growers/processors and dispensaries operating under state-issued permits. As a practical matter, marijuana lawfully dispensed through Pennsylvania’s medical marijuana program now falls within the federal rule’s new Schedule III category rather than being treated simply as Schedule I marijuana.
Pennsylvania’s statute is also notable for what it does not do. It provides express workplace protections for employees and specific regulatory authority for the Department of Education in the preschool, primary school, and secondary school setting, but it does not create a college-specific operational framework for higher education institutions. That leaves colleges to navigate the overlap of federal law, state law, disability law, campus conduct rules, clinical-placement concerns, and employment law without a clean statutory roadmap tailored to the higher-education environment.
Colleges Are Not Just Educational Institutions – They Are Also Employers
For colleges as employers, the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act already creates meaningful compliance obligations. The Act provides that an employer may not discharge, threaten, refuse to hire, or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against an employee solely because the employee is certified to use medical marijuana. At the same time, the Act makes equally clear that employers are not required to accommodate the use of medical marijuana on workplace property or premises and may discipline employees for being under the influence at work when conduct falls below the applicable standard of care.
The Act also preserves substantial room for colleges to manage safety-sensitive work. Among other exceptions, it allows employers to prohibit employees from performing life-threatening duties or duties that could result in a public health or safety risk while under the influence of medical marijuana, and it states that such prohibitions are not deemed adverse employment decisions even if they cause financial harm to the employee. For colleges, that may be especially important for employees working for the campus police or in roles related to transportation, health services, laboratories, facilities operations, athletics medicine, and other roles with safety-sensitive components.
The ADA Drug-Testing Issue Now Becomes More Complicated
One of the most important – and potentially underappreciated – employment consequences of the federal change concerns drug testing. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a test to determine the illegal use of drugs is not treated as a medical examination. The ADA also defines “illegal use of drugs” as use that is unlawful under the CSA, while excluding uses authorized by the CSA or other federal law and excluding drugs taken under the supervision of a licensed health care professional.
Before the April 2026 federal reclassification, employers often treated testing for marijuana use as comfortably within the ADA’s “illegal drug use” carve-out when considering whether a drug test created ADA obligations. That assumption is now less secure. Because the new federal rule moves marijuana subject to a qualifying state medical marijuana license into Schedule III, colleges should expect the argument that testing designed to uncover such use is no longer simply a test for illegal drug use and therefore may no longer fit neatly within the ADA’s medical-exam safe harbor. That issue is not yet settled, but it is a real litigation and compliance risk colleges should not ignore.
At a minimum, existing ADA guidance makes clear that if a drug test reveals the presence of a lawfully prescribed drug or other medical information, that information must be treated as confidential medical information. Colleges therefore should review not only whether they test for THC, but also why, when, whom they test, how results are reviewed, what follow-up questions are asked, and who receives the information. For HR and in-house counsel, that review should include any pre-employment testing, random testing, reasonable-suspicion testing, and testing tied to clinical or licensure requirements.
What Colleges Should Do Next
Pennsylvania colleges should take a careful middle path. Institutions should not rush to permit routine on-campus possession or use of medical marijuana, especially in residence halls, laboratories, athletic settings, or clinical programs. But institutions also should not continue relying on outdated policy language that treats all marijuana as uniformly illegal under federal law.
Instead, colleges should consider taking the following actions:
- Revise drug and student conduct policies to distinguish qualifying Pennsylvania medical marijuana from non-medical marijuana and other cannabis products, while making clear that recreational marijuana remains prohibited and that all smoked marijuana remains prohibited.
- Review employment policies and drug-testing protocols with HR and counsel, particularly when testing may reveal lawful Pennsylvania medical marijuana use or other protected medical information.
- Continue prohibiting impairment, recreational marijuana use, smoking, and unauthorized possession or use on campus unless and until further legal guidance develops.
- Evaluate accommodation requests individually, rather than assuming that older federal-law assumptions still resolve every issue.
- Pay particular attention to safety-sensitive roles and programs, including clinical placements and positions involving public health or safety.
- Train cabinet-level leaders, HR personnel, student affairs, disability services, and supervisors on the changed legal landscape and the need for coordinated decision-making.
Bottom Line
The April 2026 federal reclassification of qualifying medical marijuana is a significant legal development for Pennsylvania colleges, but it is not a blanket authorization. It does make old, categorical statements about marijuana and federal illegality harder to defend, especially when addressing student and employee disability-based accommodation requests. For Pennsylvania colleges, now is the time to update policies, review drug-testing practices, and ensure that senior administrators, HR professionals, and in-house counsel are working from the same, current legal framework.
Barley Snyder’s Higher Education Industry Group includes a dedicated team of attorneys who regularly advise colleges and universities on evolving compliance issues. For guidance tailored to your institution, please contact attorneys David Freedman, Sarah Doyle or any member of our group.
