Ohio can again enforce key portions of its new restrictions on intoxicating hemp products against a group of companies challenging the law, following a new order from a federal appeals court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit partially granted Ohio’s request to suspend a lower court injunction while the state appeals the case. The decision means Ohio may generally apply its marijuana licensing requirements to the 10 hemp companies involved in the lawsuit, while restrictions that effectively exclude out-of-state businesses remain blocked.
The case, Titan Logistics Group LLC v. Tischler, centers on Senate Bill 56, which changed how Ohio distinguishes hemp from marijuana.
Under the law, products containing more than 0.3% total tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) are considered marijuana under Ohio law even when they qualify as federally legal hemp. Businesses selling products that fall within Ohio’s marijuana definition are therefore generally required to participate in the state’s regulated marijuana system.
The dispute arose because Ohio’s cannabis licensing rules also restrict where marijuana products can be sourced, transferred and dispensed. The companies challenging the law operate outside Ohio or use products produced outside the state, leaving them unable to comply with those geographic requirements.
In July, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Helmick issued a broad preliminary injunction preventing Ohio officials from taking criminal, civil, administrative or regulatory action against the plaintiffs over products that remain legally defined as hemp under federal law.
Helmick found the companies had demonstrated a strong likelihood of succeeding on their claim that the system violated the dormant Commerce Clause by favoring businesses operating entirely within Ohio over out-of-state competitors.
Ohio appealed to the Sixth Circuit and asked the appeals court to put the injunction on hold.
The Sixth Circuit has now allowed Ohio to enforce portions of the law that do not depend on where a company or its products are located. That gives the state greater authority to apply its marijuana regulatory and licensing system to the plaintiffs while the appeal proceeds.
However, Ohio remains barred from enforcing provisions against the plaintiffs to the extent those provisions impose geographic restrictions on where products are sourced, manufactured or distributed.
The result leaves Ohio with substantially more enforcement authority than it had under Helmick’s original injunction, without allowing the state to use the challenged in-state requirements against the companies.
The appellate order does not resolve the underlying constitutional dispute. The Sixth Circuit is still considering Ohio’s appeal of the preliminary injunction, and the broader lawsuit remains pending.
Senate Bill 56 represents a significant departure from the federal definition of hemp. Federal law generally distinguishes hemp from marijuana based on a delta-9 THC concentration of no more than 0.3%, while Ohio’s revised law considers total THC when determining whether a product falls within the state’s definition of hemp.
The companies challenging the law include manufacturers and sellers of hemp-derived beverages and other products, including Titan Logistics Group, Saucy Seltzer, Appalachian Girls, The Hemp Collect and Mellow Fellow. The Sixth Circuit case is No. 26-3648.
Related posts:
New York Court Upholds Marijuana Tracking Requirements, Dismisses Separate Enforcement Lawsuit
NORML Urges Federal Appeals Court to Reconsider Ruling Overturning $31.8 Million Marijuana Verdict A...
