Ohio Judge Pauses Hemp Product Ban Enforcement, Saying It Favors Marijuana Industry

“The practical effect is to immunize Ohio’s in-state marijuana industry, which Ohio law requires to have an in-state physical presence, from out-of-state competition with respect to federally legal hemp products otherwise sold in interstate commerce.”

By Phillip Smith, The American Hemp Monitor

A Sandusky County court of common pleas judge has ruled that Ohio’s new law banning the sale of intoxicating hemp-derived cannabinoids except at licensed marijuana retailers is likely unconstitutional and has issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Fremont Police Department from enforcing it.

The ruling impacts only the Fremont Police Department and “all who may act in concert with them” and remains in effect only until April 28. It comes in a case brought by Seattle-based Cycling Frog, a hemp cannabinoid beverage company that sells its products throughout Ohio, including Sandusky County.

Judge Jeremiah Ray held that the new law created by the passage of Senate Bill 56 appears to violate the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. That law effectively gives the state’s licensed marijuana dispensaries a monopoly over what are federally legal hemp-derived products, Ray held. (Congress voted to radically restrict hemp-derived cannabinoids last November, but that law does not go into effect until this coming November.)

“The practical effect is to immunize Ohio’s in-state marijuana industry, which Ohio law requires to have an in-state physical presence, from out-of-state competition with respect to federally legal hemp products otherwise sold in interstate commerce,” Ray said, noting the law also discriminates against in-state businesses.

“The parallel intrastate discrimination is no defense to the interstate discrimination. Indeed, the existence of parallel intrastate discrimination makes the protectionist effect of the ordinance more acute,” he wrote. “This is because the licensed dispensaries and their attendant supply chain benefit from a lack of competition from either inside or outside Ohio. This is, thus, inherently discriminatory on its face.”

The attorney representing Cycling Frog, Andy Mayle, said he asked Ray to make the temporary restraining order a class action that would block all law enforcement agencies in the state from enforcing the law.

“That’s the next step in the case,” Mayle said. “If he does, then basically the bill—with respect to the traditional hemp industry—will not be enforceable in Ohio.”

The regulation of interstate commerce is the province of Congress, not the state of Ohio, Mayle added.

“If Ohio elects to allow these goods in Ohio, which they have—they’re just calling them marijuana now, and they can be bought at dispensaries—they can’t discriminate against the goods on the basis of their origin, which is the practical effect of the redefinition of hemp,” he said. “What they’ve done is criminalize interstate commerce. This is just a garden variety Dormant Commerce Clause violation.”

State officials disagree, and Attorney General Dave Yost (R) has filed a motion to intervene in the Sandusky case, arguing that he has the right to defend state laws created by SB 56 and that the law required consistent enforcement statewide.

“The attorney general’s participation in this case will ensure statewide consistency between the various actions challenging SB 56,” Yost wrote, pointing to pending action in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. “Represented by the same counsel representing the plaintiff here, the Saucy Seltzer plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order was denied on March 19.”

In that case, however, while the presiding judge denied the hemp company’s request for a temporary restraining order, she also set an April 10 date for a preliminary injunction hearing on the issue.

A group representing the state’s licensed marijuana industry, the Ohio Cannabis Coalition, criticized the hemp industry for challenging SB 56.

“The hemp industry has continuously worked to exploit a loophole in an effort to profit off of consumers. That continues to be true today,” coalition executive director David Bowling said. “SB 56 was meant to protect Ohioans from unsafe, untested products. The Ohio legislature and federal government are in line on this issue.”

This story was first published by The American Hemp Monitor.

Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel and Philip Steffan.

Missouri Governor Says Restricting Hemp THC Products Is ‘Something We Need To Get Done’ As Ban Bill Heads To His Desk

Missouri’s governor says the state needs to take steps to restrict the availability of intoxicating hemp-derived THC products in line with legislation that lawmakers recently sent to his desk.

“At a high level, I’m very much in favor of taking these illegal drugs in the form of the candies and stuff off of the shelves for kids to be able to buy,” Gov. Mike Kehoe (R) said in an episode of  This Week in Missouri Politics that aired on Sunday.

While the governor said his office will “do bill review” on the specific provisions of the legislation that lawmakers passed last week, he generally agrees with its aim.

“The way the legislation is drawn up is it helps us match the federal standard that’s coming down on these issues,” Kehoe said, referring to national restrictions that President Donald Trump signed into law late last year and that are set to take effect this November.

“So it gives everybody, retailers, I think, until November, to get their shelves corrected and get in the right spot,” he said. “But, definitely something we need to get done.”

The legislation that Kehoe is set to decide on, HB 2641 from Rep. Dave Hinman (R), would largely align the state with the forthcoming new federal rules removing products containing more than 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container from the definition of legal hemp.

Under the Missouri bill, “hemp-derived cannabinoid products shall be considered marijuana and shall be subject to the legal framework” of the state’s marijuana law “under which the purchase, possession, consumption, use, delivery, manufacturing, and sale of marijuana is regulated” by the Department of Health and Senior Services.

The restriction would take effect on November 12, the same date the federal policy is set to go into force.

The legislation also contains provisions to protect marijuana consumers’ privacy and recognize cannabis industry workers’ right to unionize under amendments added in the Senate.

Marijuana Rescheduling Appeal Process ‘Remains Pending’ Despite Trump’s Executive Order, DEA Says In New Filing

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) says the marijuana rescheduling appeal process “remains pending” despite President Donald Trump issuing an executive order more than three months ago directing the attorney general to enact the reform “in the most expeditious manner.”

DEA and reform proponents on Monday submitted a joint status report on an interlocutory appeal that concerns allegations of agency bias and improper communications with anti-rescheduling parties during the rescheduling review process.

“To date, Movants’ interlocutory appeal to the Administrator regarding their Motion to Reconsider remains pending with the Administrator,” the filing from attorneys representing DEA and cannabis reform proponents challenging the process says. “No briefing schedule has been set.”

It’s up to the agency to set the briefing schedule. But nearly a year after the appeal was accepted by a former administrative law judge, DEA is again delaying the process. This is the fifth joint status report, with largely identical language, that the parties filed pursuant to the administrative court’s order.

DEA Administrator Terrance Cole told senators during a confirmation hearing last year that examining the cannabis rescheduling proposal would be “one of my first priorities.”

This latest filing comes months after Trump signed an executive order calling on Attorney General Pam Bondi to expeditiously finalize a rule to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The president has since fired Bondi, replacing her on a temporary basis with DOJ official Todd Blanche as acting attorney general.

During his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation process, Blanche said in response to a written question about marijuana rescheduling that he would “give the matter careful consideration after conferring with all relevant stakeholders, including DEA personnel.”

When asked about aligning federal and state marijuana laws, he said that “coordination between federal and state authorities is critically important” but that he had “not had the opportunity to study this particular issue.”

Meanwhile, a leading marijuana prohibitionist group has retained the legal services of Trump’s former attorney general, Bill Barr, to sue to reverse federal marijuana rescheduling if and when the pending rule is finalized. And they’ll also be filing a petition through the administrative process to keep cannabis strictly prohibited.

Moving cannabis to Schedule III wouldn’t legalize marijuana, but it would formally recognize the plant’s medical value, allow marijuana businesses to take federal tax deductions and remove certain research barriers.

A recent report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) noted that DOJ could in theory decline to enact rescheduling, or start the review process all over again, for example.

—Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.—

A former DEA senior advisor recently authored a journal article arguing that current federal laws that determine how marijuana and other drugs are classified have “fundamental flaws” that have done “immense damage.”

An agriculture-focused conservative nonprofit connected to a PAC linked to the president recently applauded the rescheduling order, arguing that it will “destroy” the illicit market and support seniors and military veterans who could benefit from cannabis.

Separately, a coalition of Republican state attorneys general criticized Trump’s rescheduling decision, saying cannabis is “properly” classified as a Schedule I drug with no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.

Groups of House and Senate Republican lawmakers also sent letters urging Trump not to reschedule cannabis. Trump, however, dismissed those concerns—pointing out that an overwhelming majority of Americans support the reform and that cannabis can help people who are suffering from serious health issues, including his personal friends.

While the interlocutory appeal before DEA is on pause again with the latest filing, the agency did recently finalize quotas for legal production of controlled substances in 2026—further raising the amount of certain psychedelics that can be made for research purposes in the new year.

Over recent years, DEA has generally ramped up production goals for marijuana and certain psychedelics as interest in their therapeutic potential has grown within the public and scientific community.

Read the latest DEA filing in the rescheduling case below: