A federal judge has blocked Ohio from enforcing key provisions of SB 56 against a group of hemp companies, finding that the law likely violates the Constitution by favoring Ohio’s marijuana industry over interstate hemp commerce.

The hemp industry won an important victory in Ohio last week. On September 4, United States District Judge Jeffrey Helmick entered a preliminary injunction in Delta Beverages, Inc. v. (opens in new tab)(opens in new tab)Canepa, blocking Ohio officials from enforcing portions of Senate Bill 56 against a group of hemp companies and businesses dealing in their products.

Notably, Judge Helmick did not conclude that Ohio is prohibited from regulating hemp more strictly than the federal government. It can. Instead, he concluded that Ohio likely crossed a constitutional line by taking products that remain federally lawful hemp, redefining them as marijuana under Ohio law, and then requiring them to enter an Ohio marijuana market that effectively excludes interstate commerce.

This issue may have consequences well beyond Ohio.

What Ohio did

 SB 56 was signed by Governor Mike DeWine on December 19, 2025 and took effect on March 20, 2026.Among other changes, the law significantly narrowed Ohio’s definition of hemp. Ohio now defines hemp using a 0.3% total-THC standard that expressly includes THCA. Products that fall outside Ohio’s definition of hemp may instead fall within the state’s definition of marijuana.

That distinction is critical because marijuana in Ohio exists within a closed state licensing system. A business that wants to dispense marijuana must obtain an Ohio marijuana license. More importantly for this case, Ohio regulations prohibit a licensed dispensary from obtaining marijuana from, transferring marijuana to, or dispensing marijuana from a location outside Ohio. Put these laws together and the problem becomes obvious.

A hemp beverage or other cannabinoid product may be lawful hemp under federal law and lawfully manufactured in North Carolina, Texas, Minnesota, or another state. But if Ohio reclassifies that same product as marijuana, the manufacturer cannot simply obtain an Ohio license and continue selling it there. Ohio’s marijuana system requires the product to remain within an Ohio supply chain. The result is that federally lawful interstate hemp commerce gets converted into an intrastate marijuana market. Judge Helmick concluded that this likely violates the Dormant Commerce Clause.

The Commerce Clause matters here

The Commerce Clause gives Congress authority to regulate interstate commerce. Courts have long interpreted it to have a corresponding negative component, commonly called the “Dormant Commerce Clause”(opens in new tab), that generally prevents states from erecting protectionist barriers against interstate commerce.

Ohio argued that this doctrine should not apply because Congress has expressly allowed states to regulate hemp more strictly than federal law. That argument has some force, but it misses the point.

States can regulate hemp. They can impose age restrictions. They can require testing. They can establish packaging, labeling, manufacturing, and retail standards. They can prohibit certain products. What a state generally cannot do is structure its laws so that interstate businesses are excluded from a commercial market while in-state businesses remain able to participate.

Judge Helmick put the issue clearly. He found that Ohio’s statutory and regulatory scheme likely “impermissibly burdens out-of-state companies to the benefit of in-state commerce.”

The court specifically distinguished a 2025 Fourth Circuit case involving Virginia’s hemp restrictions, Northern Virginia Hemp and Agriculture, LLC v. Virginia(opens in new tab). There, the Fourth Circuit recognized that states may impose hemp regulations more stringent than federal law, but separately analyzed whether Virginia’s law discriminated against interstate commerce. Judge Helmick did the same thing.

The question is not whether Ohio can regulate hemp differently than Congress. Rather, the question is whether Ohio can use its hemp definition to funnel federally lawful products into a marijuana system that requires an Ohio-only supply chain. At least at this stage of the case, Judge Helmick says no.

This is not a statewide green light for intoxicating hemp

The September 4 injunction does not make all federally lawful hemp products legal throughout Ohio. The injunction protects the named plaintiffs and persons or organizations possessing, selling, distributing, or consuming those plaintiffs’ products. It prohibits enforcement activity that depends upon or relates to SB 56’s amended definition of hemp, but only so long as the product involved remains hemp or a hemp-derived product under federal law. That is meaningful relief, but it is not an industrywide injunction.

A hemp company that is not a plaintiff should not read this decision and immediately conclude that it can ship any federally lawful cannabinoid product into Ohio. The scope of an injunction matters. So do the product, the parties, the specific Ohio law being enforced, and federal hemp status. We have discussed this issue with several clients that conduct business in Ohio, and we recommend getting advice before acting on this decision.

This is also not the first Ohio hemp injunction

The Delta Beverages case is even more significant when viewed alongside another case pending before Judge Helmick. In July, he granted a preliminary injunction in Titan Logistics Group LLC v. Tischler(opens in new tab) involving a separate group of hemp companies challenging the same basic statutory scheme.

The reasoning was substantially the same. Ohio could not exclude out-of-state companies from its market for federally lawful hemp while allowing the same products to be sold through an Ohio-only system. Ohio appealed the Titan Logistics injunction to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. That appeal remains important because a Sixth Circuit decision could establish appellate precedent governing federal courts throughout Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee. So, although Delta Beverages is an important victory, the larger constitutional issue is far from resolved.

The broader problem with forcing hemp into marijuana systems

I think these cases expose a larger problem with the current hemp debate. There are legitimate reasons to regulate cannabinoid products, and I have advocated for years that cannabinoid products should be kept away from minors, accurately tested, properly manufactured, and clearly labeled. Responsible hemp businesses generally support these things.

Regulation and prohibition are not the same thing. Neither is consumer protection the same thing as economic protectionism. State marijuana systems were intentionally built as closed intrastate markets because marijuana remains federally illegal. Marijuana cannot lawfully move through interstate commerce, so states created vertically restricted licensing systems in which cannabis is grown, manufactured, distributed, and sold within their borders. Hemp is different.

Congress expressly created a federally lawful commodity and authorized interstate transportation of it. Whatever one thinks about intoxicating hemp products as a matter of policy, the modern hemp industry developed as a national industry.

Trying to solve hemp policy questions by simply declaring federally lawful hemp to be “marijuana” and forcing it into an existing intrastate marijuana system creates exactly the constitutional problem now playing out in Ohio.

It also creates bad policy. If states want to regulate intoxicating hemp, they should regulate it directly. Establish reasonable age limits. Require legitimate testing and COAs. Adopt sensible potency, packaging, and labeling standards. Punish businesses that sell to minors or misrepresent their products. But forcing an interstate hemp product into a closed marijuana licensing system does not magically make the product safer. It mostly changes who is allowed to sell it.

Why this case matters nationally

Ohio is not the only state wrestling with the relationship between hemp and marijuana.

Across the country, legislatures and regulators are considering laws that would eliminate or severely restrict hemp-derived cannabinoid products, sometimes while allowing materially similar products to be sold through state marijuana programs.

The constitutional analysis will depend on the specific language and regulatory structure of each state. A state does not violate the Commerce Clause merely because it adopts hemp rules that are stricter than federal law. But Delta Beverages and Titan Logistics provide a roadmap for examining these laws.

Where a state takes a federally lawful interstate product, reclassifies it as marijuana, and then provides a lawful pathway to market only through an intrastate marijuana system, the Dormant Commerce Clause should be part of the analysis. That is particularly true when the practical effect is not to prohibit the product altogether, but to reserve the market for businesses operating inside the state.

My view

Ohio has legitimate interests in protecting consumers and minors. So does every state. Those interests do not require dismantling interstate hemp commerce. The hemp industry’s position should not be that states cannot regulate cannabinoid products. They can, and reasonable regulation is necessary for a durable national hemp market.

But there is an enormous difference between establishing legitimate product standards and using marijuana laws to close a state market to federally lawful interstate hemp.Fortunately, Judge Helmick recognizes that distinction.

The ultimate outcome will likely depend on the Sixth Circuit, and perhaps eventually on higher courts. For now, however, the Ohio cases stand for an important proposition: states have broad power to regulate hemp, but that power is not unlimited.

A state should be able to protect its consumers. It should not be able to protect its local cannabis industry from interstate competition simply by changing the label on the product. That is not cannabis regulation. It is protectionism. And the Constitution has something to say about that.

Here’s the Preliminary Injunction:

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

|

Download [133.07 KB]

September 7, 2026

Rod Kight (opens in new tab)is an international cannabis lawyer. He represents businesses throughout the cannabis industry. Additionally, Rod speaks at cannabis conferences, drafts and presents legislation to foreign governments, is regularly quoted on cannabis matters in the media, and is the editor of the Kight on Cannabis legal blog, which discusses legal issues affecting the cannabis industry. You can schedule a call with him by clicking here(opens in new tab).