CURE Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Raskin, Jamie [D-MD-8]
- Committees
- Oversight and Government Reform Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 17, 2026
Bottom line
The CURE Act seeks to eliminate past cannabis use as a disqualifying factor for federal security clearances and employment, providing a mechanism for individuals previously denied to seek reconsideration.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to explicitly exclude marihuana from the definition of a controlled substance for the purpose of security clearance and federal employment suitability determinations. It prohibits past marihuana use from being a basis for denying a security clearance or federal employment. Furthermore, it requires federal agencies to establish a process within one year to review and potentially reassess adverse determinations made since January 1, 2008, if those decisions were based solely on past marihuana use.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that current federal policies regarding cannabis use are outdated and create unnecessary barriers to federal service, especially for individuals who have legally used cannabis in states where it is permitted. They contend that these policies disproportionately affect certain demographics and hinder the federal government's ability to recruit a diverse and talented workforce, asserting that past cannabis use does not inherently equate to a national security risk or a lack of judgment.
Opponents contend
Opponents may argue that, despite state-level legalization, cannabis remains illegal under federal law, and federal employees, particularly those requiring security clearances, must adhere to federal statutes. Concerns could be raised about potential national security risks, such as vulnerability to blackmail or impaired judgment, and the precedent this bill might set for other federally illegal substances, potentially undermining the integrity of federal drug policy.
The bill is exceptionally concise, allowing for a quick and straightforward read, making its core provisions immediately accessible for evaluation.
Section 2(a)
Exclusion of Marihuana from 'Controlled Substance' Definition
This provision amends the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to specify that, for the purposes of security clearance and suitability determinations, the term 'controlled substance' does not include marihuana. This effectively removes marihuana from the list of substances that could automatically lead to an adverse determination.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this change aligns federal policy with the evolving legal landscape of cannabis in many states, preventing otherwise qualified individuals from being unfairly penalized for past behavior that is increasingly normalized and legal at the state level. It broadens the pool of eligible candidates for critical federal positions.
Critics contend
Critics may contend that this provision creates a conflict between federal law, which still classifies marihuana as a Schedule I controlled substance, and federal employment/security policies. They might argue it could send a mixed message about adherence to federal law for those seeking to serve the government.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between federal prohibition of cannabis and widespread state-level legalization, aiming to modernize federal hiring practices while potentially creating a policy inconsistency.
Section 2(e)(1)
Prohibition on Adverse Determinations Based on Past Marihuana Use
This section explicitly prohibits federal agencies from using an individual's past use of marihuana as a factor in determining their eligibility for a security clearance or their suitability for federal employment. This applies 'notwithstanding any other law, rule, or regulation,' making the prohibition comprehensive.
Section 2(e)(2)
Review and Reassessment Process for Past Denials
Federal agencies are mandated to establish a public process within one year of the CURE Act's enactment to review security clearance or federal employment denials made on or after January 1, 2008. Upon request, agencies must reconsider these decisions within 90 days if the denial was based solely on past marihuana use.
The bill defines 'marihuana' by referencing section 102(16) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(16)).
Section 2(e)(3)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting practice to ensure consistency with existing legal definitions rather than creating a new, potentially conflicting definition within the bill.
Case for: Using an existing federal definition ensures legal consistency and avoids ambiguity regarding what specific substances are covered by the term 'marihuana' as understood in federal law.
Case against: A casual reader might not realize the full implications of the definition without looking up the referenced statute, potentially leading to misunderstandings about the scope of the bill's impact.
Estimated impact: Ensures the bill's provisions apply to the specific plant and its derivatives as federally defined, excluding other cannabis-related products (like synthetic cannabinoids) that might not fall under this specific definition.
The review and reassessment process for past denials applies to decisions made 'on or after January 1, 2008'.
Section 2(e)(2)(A)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative practice for setting effective dates or look-back periods, often chosen for administrative feasibility or policy relevance.
Case for: Setting a specific start date for review provides a clear administrative boundary, allowing agencies to focus resources on a defined period and potentially aligning with shifts in public perception or state-level legalization efforts.
Case against: Some might argue that the chosen date is arbitrary and could exclude individuals who suffered similar adverse determinations prior to 2008, potentially limiting the bill's restorative justice aims.
Estimated impact: Limits the scope of retroactive reviews to a 18-year period (from 2008 to 2026), affecting potentially thousands of individuals but not all historical denials.