Last updated: September 1, 2026. This is an active case. We update this post as it moves.
On August 27, 2026, the American Kratom Association filed suit against the Drug Enforcement Administration in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The case is docketed as 1:26-cv-02997, and the named defendants are the DEA, DEA Administrator Terrance C. Cole, and the U.S. Department of Justice.
It landed one day after the order it concerns took effect.
The AKA is not challenging the scheduling itself. It publicly supported that action. The suit asks a narrower question with much wider consequences: whether an order written to capture deliberately manufactured compounds can also be read to reach traditional kratom leaf that contains trace amounts of those same compounds by nature.
The order at the center of it
We covered the order itself when it issued, in DEA Places Three 7-OH-Related Compounds in Schedule I, and the wider regulatory timeline in where things actually stand on the 7-OH scheduling window. The short version, for context.
Two separate DEA notices of intent published on July 6, 2026. One proposed scheduling 7-hydroxymitragynine above a concentration threshold. The other covered three different substances: mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16.
The second of those became a final temporary scheduling order effective August 26, 2026, running two years to August 26, 2028. The first, the 7-OH threshold action, has not issued as an order.
Here is the asymmetry the lawsuit turns on. The 7-OH notice proposes a number: more than 0.050 percent by weight, or more than 1.0 milligram per article. The derivatives order that actually issued contains no comparable threshold at all. There is no stated trace-level carve-out for mitragynine pseudoindoxyl occurring in botanical material.
Why a missing number matters
The AKA's argument is chemical rather than political.
Its complaint contends that trace amounts of mitragynine pseudoindoxyl can appear in ordinary leaf material through natural botanical processes, standard post-harvest handling, or storage, without anyone synthesizing anything or intending to. If that is correct, and the order carries no threshold, then conventionally processed leaf could in principle test positive for a Schedule I substance while being exactly what it claims to be.
The Department of Justice has said publicly that the scheduling targets "deliberately manufactured and concentrated opioid products, not traditional botanical kratom." The AKA's position is that this intent belongs in the text of the order rather than in enforcement discretion.
Mac Haddow, the association's Senior Fellow on Public Policy, framed it as a question of clarity rather than opposition, saying in the association's announcement of the filing that the suit is "about regulatory clarity" and about ensuring the order stays focused on deliberately manufactured products.
What the complaint asks for
Declaratory and injunctive relief, in the alternative:
- A declaration that the temporary scheduling order does not apply to traditional botanical kratom containing only naturally occurring or naturally formed trace levels of these compounds.
- Failing that, a judicially established, scientifically defensible threshold, so enforcement has a measurable line rather than a categorical one.
Option two is essentially a request to give the derivatives order the same architecture the 7-OH action already proposes.
Where we stand
Our position has not moved.
We have never sold isolated, concentrated, or semi-synthetic 7-OH products, and we do not carry mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, or MGM-16 in any form. Our catalog is traditional leaf material and conventional extracts from GMP-qualified brands, tested by independent labs, with certificates of analysis tied to batch codes. That sourcing decision predates all of this, and we set out the reasoning in natural kratom versus synthetic 7-OH.
We also think the AKA is asking for the right thing. A rule that distinguishes manufactured, concentrated compounds from botanical leaf is a rule the legitimate side of this industry can operate under. A rule that draws no line, and instead relies on prosecutors choosing not to apply it broadly, is not a durable foundation for anyone. Thresholds are enforceable. Assurances are not.
None of that is a claim about what kratom does. It is a claim about what a workable regulation looks like.
What this changes for you
Natural kratom leaf remains federally unscheduled. The compounds placed in Schedule I are named individually, and Mitragyna speciosa is not among them.
Nothing has been decided. As of publication, no ruling had been reported and no hearing date had been set. The order remains in effect while the case proceeds.
State and local law is still where the sharper edges are. We covered that picture in our roundup of city-level kratom bans, and it keeps moving. Check your own state and county before ordering.
Batch-level documentation matters more than it did a month ago. If thresholds end up litigated in terms of measured content, the vendors who will be fine are the ones who can produce a batch-matched certificate of analysis on request. Here is how to read one.
We will update this post as the case develops.
Frequently asked questions
Is kratom now illegal at the federal level?
No. Natural kratom leaf remains federally unscheduled. The DEA's temporary order names specific compounds, and the plant itself is not among them.
What are MGM-15 and MGM-16?
Synthetic derivatives, described by the DEA as produced through chemical modification of purified mitragynine isolates or 7-hydroxymitragynine. They are not naturally occurring constituents of the leaf.
Why would the AKA support the scheduling and still sue?
Because the order it supported contains no threshold. The AKA backs enforcement against deliberately manufactured compounds and is asking the court to make sure the order does not sweep in trace levels that occur in ordinary leaf.
Does NuWave sell any of the scheduled compounds?
No. We do not carry mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, or MGM-16 in any form, and we do not sell isolated, concentrated, or semi-synthetic 7-OH products.
How long does the temporary scheduling last?
It took effect August 26, 2026 and runs to August 26, 2028, with a possible one-year extension if permanent scheduling proceedings are initiated.
Sources
- Federal Register: Temporary Placement of Mitragynine Pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 in Schedule I, final order, August 26, 2026
- Federal Register: Notice of intent, mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16, July 6, 2026
- Federal Register: Notice of intent, 7-hydroxymitragynine above a specified threshold, July 6, 2026
- American Kratom Association: announcement of federal lawsuit, August 27, 2026
Questions about our sourcing or lab documentation? Email orders@nuwavebotanicals.com.
FDA Disclaimer
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Kratom products are intended strictly for individuals 18 years of age or older, or 21+ where required by applicable state law.
We comply with all applicable state and local laws. Orders to restricted areas are not fulfilled. Check your local regulations before ordering.