A federal judge in Toledo ruled Monday that Ohio officials cannot enforce the state's hemp-derived beverage THC ban against the 10 companies that sued, or retailers selling their products.
\nU.S. District Judge Jeffrey Helmick's injunction arises from a lawsuit over Senate Bill 56, passed last year to tighten Ohio's voter-approved marijuana law. The measure redefines most intoxicating hemp products as marijuana and bars any company without a physical presence in Ohio from growing or selling them. Ten hemp businesses sued, calling the law unconstitutional.
\nHelmick had already issued a temporary restraining order protecting the plaintiffs from enforcement. On Monday, finding their case persuasive, he converted that order into a preliminary injunction to remain in effect while the lawsuit proceeds.
\n\"What Senate Bill 56 has done is to exclude federally legal intoxicating hemp products from Ohio's statutory definition of hemp, redefine them as illegal marijuana, and then to prohibit any company from cultivating or selling those products unless the company has a physical presence in the state of Ohio,\" Helmick wrote. \"Because plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that that law impermissibly favors in-state companies over out-of-state companies in violation of the Constitution of the United States, I grant plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.\"
\nThe judge said Ohio provided no evidence that federal law lets states favor in-state businesses, citing Supreme Court precedent against discriminating against interstate commerce when reasonable non-discriminatory alternatives exist. He noted no defendant explained why age-verification and potency-testing requirements the legislature had considered wouldn't have addressed the state's health concerns without discriminating against out-of-state companies.
\nAndy Mayle, an attorney for the hemp companies, called the ruling an efficient and forceful explanation of how Ohio's law violated the U.S. Constitution, saying it protects businesses and consumers nationwide from states banning products simply because they were made elsewhere.
\nJulie Pfeiffer, Ohio's assistant attorney general and lead counsel, argued the Commerce Clause didn't apply since Congress had already passed hemp legislation not taking effect until November, and that allowing sales would expose Ohioans to unregulated, potentially dangerous products — though she couldn't cite any poisonings tied to the plaintiffs. Helmick rejected both arguments, though the state may raise them again as the case continues.
\nThis story was first published by The American Hemp Monitor.
\n"}