Ohio Hemp Litigation: Regulation or Protectionism?

Ohio’s attempt to move federally lawful hemp products into its closed marijuana market has now produced three federal preliminary injunctions and an expedited appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. These cases are important for reasons that extend beyond Ohio.

The primary issue is how far a state go in regulating federally lawful hemp before regulation becomes unconstitutional discrimination against interstate commerce? The answer is still developing. But the Ohio cases are beginning to draw an important line.

A state has substantial authority to regulate products sold within its borders. Age restrictions, testing requirements, labeling standards, manufacturing rules and other health and safety measures generally present a different constitutional issue from a law that permits an in-state industry to sell a product while effectively excluding out-of-state competitors. 

What Ohio did

Ohio Senate Bill 56 took effect on March 20, 2026.

Among other things, the law substantially changed Ohio’s definition of hemp. Ohio now uses a total THC standard that expressly includes THCa in the calculation, and the statute excludes various hemp-derived cannabinoid products from the definition of hemp based on their cannabinoid content, method of manufacture and amount of THC in the finished container. Ohio’s current definition is substantially narrower than the federal definition found in the 2018 Farm Bill.

Some products that remain lawful “hemp” under current federal law are now classified as “marijuana” under Ohio law. Importantly, marijuana may be sold in Ohio only through the state’s licensed cannabis system. That does not necessarily create a constitutional problem. Most federal courts have ruled that states may regulate hemp more strictly than federal law. The problem arises from what happens next.

Ohio’s marijuana rules restrict licensed marijuana businesses from obtaining, transferring or dispensing marijuana through locations outside Ohio. When SB 56’s hemp definition is combined with Ohio’s existing marijuana licensing system, an out-of-state manufacturer of a federally lawful hemp product can effectively be excluded from Ohio while an Ohio-based marijuana company can participate in the market. This brings the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution into play.

The first injunction: Titan Logistics

The first major case is Titan Logistics Group LLC v. Tischler. In Titan, ten hemp companies challenged SB 56 in federal court. The court initially entered a temporary restraining order and, on July 13, granted a preliminary injunction. The Court found that the Constitution generally prohibits states from treating in-state and out-of-state economic interests differently in a way that benefits the former and burdens the latter. For this reason, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that Ohio had done exactly that.

SB 56 took products that were federally lawful hemp, classified them as marijuana under Ohio law, and then placed them into a marijuana system structured around an Ohio-only supply chain. The plaintiffs, which manufactured or sourced products outside Ohio, could not participate on equal terms.

The court also addressed Ohio’s health and safety arguments. The state argued that the restrictions were necessary because the state could not adequately know the composition or safety of out-of-state intoxicating hemp products.

The court was not persuaded, noting that Ohio had regulatory tools available that would address product safety without discriminating geographically. The record included discussion of measures such as age restrictions and potency testing that could apply regardless of where a product was manufactured.

The preliminary injunction in Titan prohibited enforcement against the named plaintiffs, and against persons possessing, selling, distributing or consuming their products, where the enforcement depended on SB 56’s amended hemp definition and the product remained lawful hemp under federal law. The state Ohio asked  the court to stay the injunction pending appeal. The court refused, observing that Ohio could cure a discriminatory system by opening the market on equal terms or by restricting the market equally. Which approach Ohio chooses, he said, is a legislative question. Ohio appealed.

Delta Beverages

The next significant case is Delta Beverages, Inc. v. Canepa. The Delta Beverages case involved another group of hemp businesses, including beverage companies whose products were manufactured or sourced outside Ohio.

On September 4, the same court as Titan granted those plaintiffs a preliminary injunction based on essentially the same reasoning. As in Titan, the critical point was the interaction between the federal hemp definition and Ohio’s marijuana system. By classifying federally lawful hemp products as marijuana while requiring marijuana to move through an Ohio-based supply chain, the court concluded that Ohio was likely imposing an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. The relief was limited.

The order protects the plaintiffs and persons possessing, selling, distributing or consuming their products. It does not invalidate SB 56 throughout Ohio and it does not grant the hemp industry generally a right to sell intoxicating cannabinoid products in the state.

Fresh Farms 

On September 24, the same court issued a third preliminary injunction in Fresh Farms E Liquid LLC v. Tischler. Fresh Farms is a California company that had previously sold federally lawful hemp products into Ohio but stopped after SB 56 became effective.

Ohio argued, among other things, that the constitutional problem could be solved simply by enjoining the particular regulation prohibiting interstate marijuana transactions while leaving the remainder of SB 56 in place. The court rejected that argument, at least under the present regulatory structure.

Ohio acknowledged that the Division of Cannabis Control had not yet completed the licensing rules required by SB 56. As a result, new companies could not simply apply for an Ohio license and enter the market. Existing marijuana licensees remained the businesses positioned to sell products Ohio had newly classified as marijuana.

The court therefore granted Fresh Farms substantially the same protection it had granted the plaintiffs in the earlier cases. Ohio may not take enforcement action against Fresh Farms, or persons possessing, selling, distributing or consuming its products, based on SB 56’s amended hemp definition so long as the relevant product remains hemp under federal law.

The Sixth Circuit is now involved

Ohio appealed the Titan Logistics injunction in July. The Sixth Circuit expedited the appeal and scheduled oral argument for October 22, 2026. On September 25, the Sixth Circuit acted on Ohio’s separate motion to stay the injunction while the appeal proceeds. 

The appeal remains pending. The principal constitutional question, whether Ohio’s combined statutory and licensing framework unlawfully discriminates against interstate hemp commerce, has not yet been finally resolved by the Sixth Circuit. 

What the cases do not say

The Ohio decisions are significant wins for the plaintiffs, but they are easy to misread.

The specific legal issue is narrow. The Dormant Commerce Clause generally prohibits states from structuring their laws so that in-state economic interests receive preferential access to a market while similarly situated out-of-state businesses are excluded or materially disadvantaged.

This is different from ordinary product regulation, which is generally allowed. A rule requiring every cannabinoid product sold in Ohio to undergo specified contaminant testing, for example, presents a very different Commerce Clause problem if the same requirement applies to an Ohio manufacturer and a North Carolina manufacturer. The same is true of neutral age restrictions, labeling requirements, serving limits, child-resistant packaging standards or product-registration requirements. These types of requirements are generally lawful. 

Practical guidance for hemp operators

First, these injunctions are not statewide legalization of hemp products. A company that is not protected by one of the court orders should not assume that the plaintiffs’ victories authorize it to begin shipping products into Ohio. 

Second, companies that are protected by an injunction should monitor the appellate proceedings closely. The Sixth Circuit has already acted on Ohio’s stay request, and the merits appeal is moving quickly. A business model should not depend on the assumption that preliminary relief will remain unchanged.

Third, pay close attention to federal hemp status. Each of the court’s injunctions require the product to remain “hemp” under federal law.

Fourth, companies operating nationally should separate two questions that are often lumped together: (1) Can the state regulate my product? (2) Can the state discriminate against me because I am located somewhere else? A company may lose a challenge to a neutral potency or labeling standard while having a strong constitutional challenge to a residency requirement or an in-state manufacturing mandate.

Fourth, operators should document the economic impact of exclusionary state laws. Lost distributors, cancelled purchase orders, terminated retailer relationships, inability to obtain a license, increased manufacturing costs and other concrete business injuries can matter enormously in constitutional litigation. The Ohio plaintiffs were able to show that the challenged structure directly interfered with their ability to participate in the market.

Regulation and market protection are different things

These Ohio cases illustrate an important policy distinction in the hemp debate. States have legitimate interests in determining how cannabinoid products are manufactured, tested, labeled and sold. Concerns about minors, inaccurate potency claims, contaminants, irresponsible packaging and poorly manufactured products are real regulatory issues. The Commerce Clause does not prevent a state from addressing those concerns through rules that apply evenhandedly to businesses inside and outside the state.

A different issue arises when a state’s regulatory structure gives local businesses access to a market that comparable out-of-state businesses cannot obtain. Courts may examine and rule on whether the law is actually regulating products or protecting a local industry from interstate competition. The Ohio cases are significant because they directly address this issue.

What comes next

The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Titan Logistics will be much more important than any individual preliminary injunction. If the court agrees with the lower court’s Commerce Clause analysis, the effect could reach beyond Ohio. A number of states are considering ways to move hemp-derived cannabinoid products into existing marijuana systems, many of which were deliberately designed as closed intrastate markets because marijuana remains federally illegal. We’ll be watching closely. 

Contact us if you have questions or concerns about how these cases impact your hemp business. 

September 29, 2026