Texas Judge Hits Pause on DSHS Hemp Rules. Here Is What the Order Actually Does.

A Travis County district court has entered a temporary restraining order blocking Texas from enforcing the most consequential parts of the new DSHS hemp rules, at least for now. That is a significant win for the Texas hemp industry, especially for businesses dealing in flower, pre-rolls, and other products that were effectively knocked out of the market by the agency’s new “total delta-9 THC” and “acceptable hemp THC level” framework. But this is not a final decision, and it is not a wholesale invalidation of every part of the rules. It is a short-term injunction designed to preserve the legal status quo while the court takes a closer look. 

That distinction matters. For the moment, the order gives Texas hemp businesses breathing room. It does not, however, end the fight over whether DSHS can use rulemaking to do what the Legislature itself did not do, namely, replace Texas’ statutory delta-9 THC standard with a more aggressive total-THC-style compliance regime. The hearing on the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary injunction is set for April 23, 2026, and the TRO expires after 14 days unless extended by agreement or further court order.

Thanks to the following law firms for their excellent work on behalf of the Texas hemp industry: Butler Snow, Snell Law Firm, Banks Law Firm, Dickinson Wright, Chad Baruch, and Sergi & Associates.

What the court did

The order was entered in Texas Hemp Business Council, et al. v. Texas Department of State Health Services, et al., Cause No. D-1-GN-26-002511, in Travis County district court. The plaintiffs include the Texas Hemp Business Council, Hemp Industry & Farmers of America, and several Texas hemp businesses. The defendants are DSHS, HHSC, and Attorney General Ken Paxton in his official capacity.

The court found that the plaintiffs showed a probable right to relief on their core claim that the challenged rules exceed the authority delegated by the Legislature, conflict with Texas Health & Safety Code Chapter 443, and were adopted in violation of the Texas Administrative Procedure Act and the Texas Constitution. Most importantly, the judge wrote that although the rules preserve the statutory definition of hemp “in form,” they replace it “in operation” by requiring compliance with a “total delta-9 THC” or “acceptable hemp THC level” standard that differs from the delta-9 THC threshold enacted by the Legislature. The court concluded that this amounts to a substantive change in governing law through rulemaking rather than implementation of the statute as written. 

That is the heart of the case, and it is also the heart of the industry’s objection from the beginning. Texas law still defines hemp by reference to delta-9 THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry-weight basis. DSHS’s new Chapter 300 rules, by contrast, created an “acceptable hemp THC level” tied to total delta-9 THC and defined “total delta-9 THC” in a way that converts THCA into delta-9 THC equivalents. In practical terms, those rules turned much of the Texas hemp flower market into prohibited inventory without the Legislature actually amending Chapter 443. 

Why the court granted emergency relief

The court also found probable, imminent, and irreparable injury, all of which are necessary to issue an injunction. According to the order, enforcement of the new rules would immediately alter testing, manufacturing, transport, distribution, and retail practices; prevent manufacturers from obtaining hemp plants and hemp-derived inputs for continued in-state production by prohibiting transport of materials into Texas for further processing; force businesses either to cease lawful operations or relocate out of state; expose them to embargo, detention, escalating administrative penalties, and license consequences; and impose significant financial burdens. The court further found that these injuries were difficult or impossible to quantify and could not be adequately remedied by money damages.

The court also accepted the plaintiffs’ status-quo argument. It held that the status quo to be preserved is the last actual, peaceable, non-contested status preceding the March 31, 2026 effective date of the challenged rules, under which the plaintiffs were operating pursuant to the statutory framework created by the Legislature in Chapter 443. That language is important because it frames the dispute as one about preserving the law as enacted, not preserving some deregulatory vacuum. 

What parts of the rules are restrained

The TRO is broad where it matters most. It restrains enforcement of the challenged rules to the extent they condition the manufacture, testing, transport, distribution, or sale of consumable hemp products on a “total delta-9 THC” or “acceptable hemp THC level” standard instead of the Legislature’s delta-9 THC standard. It specifically restrains enforcement of the definitions in 25 T.A.C. §§ 300.101(1) and 300.101(45) to the extent they implement a non-statutory THC compliance framework, including the conversion of THCA into delta-9 THC equivalents. It also restrains enforcement of the testing and commercialization provisions in §§ 300.301–300.303 to the extent those provisions substitute a non-statutory THC metric, and it restrains enforcement of transport and manufacturing restrictions in §§ 300.206(c) and 300.404 to the extent they prohibit or restrict transport of hemp plants and hemp-derived materials into Texas for further processing based on that non-statutory metric. 

The court also restrained enforcement of § 300.601(b) and related provisions to the extent they impose penalties or enforcement mechanisms dependent on the challenged THC framework, and it restrained administrative and civil enforcement actions, including product embargoes or detentions, license suspensions or revocations, and civil actions by the Attorney General, to the extent those actions are based on the challenged provisions.

That matters operationally. As a practical matter, the order pauses the rule provisions that made the new Chapter 300 regime most destructive to the existing Texas hemp market, especially to flower and pre-roll businesses.

What the order does not do

This is where businesses need to be careful. The TRO does not invalidate Chapter 300 as a whole. The order expressly says it does not enjoin enforcement of statutory provisions or rule provisions that were not challenged.

And, notably, the portion of the proposed relief dealing with the new licensing and registration fees appears to have been crossed out and was not granted. (A copy of the order is below.) Additionally, the court did not restrain the increased fee structure. So while the total-delta-9 framework has been paused for now, businesses should not assume that every other part of the March 31 rules disappeared with it. 

That means businesses should still be extremely cautious about ignoring the rest of the Texas consumable-hemp regime. Chapter 300 continues, at least in substantial part, to implement Chapter 443 and still contains requirements relating to inspection authority, retailer registration, certain packaging and labeling obligations, age-restriction rules, and general oversight of consumable hemp products. DSHS’s program page also still says the adopted rules became effective on March 31, 2026. 

Why this order matters beyond Texas

The court got the central legal issue right. This case is not really about whether Texas may regulate hemp. Of course it may. It is about who gets to make the law. Agencies are allowed to create binding rules to implement the statutes they regulate and enforce, but they are not allowed to rewrite statutes enacted by the Legislature. If the Legislature wants to move Texas from a delta-9 THC standard to a total-THC or total-delta-9 framework, it can do that. But an agency should not be allowed to accomplish the same result through definitions and testing rules that effectively amend the statute in practice. 

That point should resonate well beyond the hemp industry. Separation of powers is not some technical lawyer’s objection. It is one of the few things standing between lawful enterprise and government by administrative improvisation.

At the same time, the industry should not confuse this court win with an argument against regulation itself. Texas should regulate hemp products. It should just regulate them in a lawful and sensible way. From my perspective, the right approach remains the same one I have advocated for years: the Three Pillars Approach. Limit youth access. Require objective quality control and testing. Require clear packaging and labeling so adults can make informed decisions. That is real consumer protection. It is also a far better approach than using agency overreach to wipe out lawful inventory and crush smaller operators who do not have the capital to relocate, litigate, or absorb months of regulatory whiplash. 

What Texas hemp businesses should do now

For now, Texas hemp businesses should view this as a pause, not a permanent reset. Flower, pre-roll, and related businesses have room to operate again under the pre-March-31 statutory framework, at least temporarily. But they should not assume the case is over or that all risks are gone. The temporary injunction hearing on April 23 will matter, and the State may continue to defend the rules aggressively. It is safe to assume that the State will be better prepared for the April 23 hearing than it was for today’s emergency hearing. 

In the meantime, operators should do three things. First, keep documentation tight, including COAs, sourcing records, and product files. Second, do not assume that every non-THC-related rule is dead. Third, use this window to reassess product mix, compliance protocols, and litigation exposure. This is a reprieve, not a guarantee.

Final thought

This order is a welcome reminder that courts still matter and that agencies do not get to rewrite statutes simply because they prefer a different policy outcome. For Texas hemp businesses, it is a real and meaningful win. For lawmakers, it is also a warning. If Texas wants a tighter hemp framework, it needs to do that through the Legislature, and it should do so in a way that protects minors, ensures product safety, and gives adults lawful access without handing the market to a small number of large corporate players.

That is the right lesson from this case. And it is one Texas should take seriously before the next round begins.

Here’s the Order:

April 10, 2026