Goin’ Down South: How the Southeastern U.S. Became the Current Hotbed of Cannabis Activity

Part of the reason we started a Cannabis Industry team at a Southeastern-based law firm before any Southeastern state had adopted a marijuana program was because we had a hunch that the expansion of cannabis would eventually make its way to our neck of the woods. And we guess it was just kind of a slow day around the office.

It turns out that our hunch – which even we are modest enough to admit was pretty much obvious and inevitable – turned out to be true. In the last seven years, there has been an explosion of cannabis activity and controversy in the Southeast. From marijuana in various forms to hemp and all of its iterations, the Southeast has been playing catchup with the rest of the country and in doing so is experiencing the progression of cannabis reform at an accelerated pace with the benefit of seeing the experiences of earlier cannabis adopters. We aren’t alone in observing this phenomenon. Jessica Billingsley, for Rolling Stone, has written on the topic several times.

Don’t get me wrong, we’re not so naïve as to think that states around the country aren’t also experiencing dramatic and dynamic debates and reforms about the cannabis industry. In fact, we’ve dedicated a great deal of time and effort to writing about those issues and how they reflect – or in some cases depart from – cannabis programs in other states. But the speed of reform efforts and their concentration in a specific portion of the country have made the Southeastern U.S. the – ok, at least a – current hotbed of cannabis activity.

C’mon. What’s Happening in the Southeast That Makes It So Special? Aren’t You Just Writing This Because You Live There? Could You Be More Egocentric?

Wow, that got a little weird and revealing there for a second but we’re back. For those who may not enjoy the privilege of calling the Southeastern U.S. home, here is a sampling of the cannabis activity currently taking place in the region:

Florida’s Medical Marijuana Market Matures, but Voters Narrowly Rejected the Ballot Initiative for an Adult-Use Program; Hemp Program Survives by Governor’s Veto (for Now)

Florida broke the seal on medical marijuana in the Southeast when it adopted a medical program in 2016. While the program has certainly had its hiccups, it has generally proven to be a popular program as it has matured over the years.

On April 1, 2024, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that voters would decide whether Florida will become the 24th state to legalize adult-use marijuana at the ballot boxes in November. The significant opposition that succeeded in keeping a similar initiative off the 2022 ballots evidently prevailed this year. The initiative came short of receiving the required 60% approval to pass with only about 56% of Florida voters voting in favor.

On the hemp front, earlier this year we wrote that the Florida Legislature passed a bill that would limit the amount of THC in hemp-derived products and upend the novel cannabinoid industry in the state by banning delta-8 and delta-10 products. But in a surprising move described by Marijuana Moment as “somewhat contradictory,” conservative Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed the legislation, even as he campaigns against adult-use marijuana. This being the South and a controversial issue involving potentially extraordinary amounts of money, there are strange bedfellows and innuendo:

The governor of Florida is reportedly planning to veto a bill that would ban consumable hemp-derived cannabinoid products such as delta-8 THC, apparently because he’s hoping the hemp industry will help finance a campaign opposing a marijuana legalization initiative on the state’s November ballot.

As Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) prepares to step up his push against the legalization measure, officials close to the governor… say he’s plotting to leverage the hemp industry’s economic interest in participating in the intoxicating cannabinoid market to convince people to vote against marijuana reform.

Safe to same there’s more to come in the next couple of months for what has become the 5,000 lbs. gorilla in the Southeastern cannabis landscape.

Arkansas’ Medical Program Booms While Adult Use and Hemp in Limbo During Court Battles

Like Florida, Arkansas was one of the pioneers of bringing medical marijuana to the Southeast. Arkansans voted to approve a medical marijuana program in 2016 via Amendment 98, although the first legal sales did not occur until May 2019. The program eclipsed $1 billion in sales by late 2023, and as of August 2024, sales in 2024 exceeded $158.5 million. From all metrics, the program appears to be doing very well.

And, while an effort to place on the November ballot an initiative that would have further expanded the program was stymied by the Arkansas Supreme Court just before the election, a ballot initiative in 2022 to create an adult-use program didn’t fail by an insurmountable margin, with 43.8% voting in favor.

On the hemp front, all eyes are on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. That court conducted oral arguments in the Sanders v. Bio Gen appeal on September 24, so a decision should be forthcoming. The trial court action was filed by hemp companies challenging an Arkansas law (known as Act 629) that the plaintiffs contended impermissibly outlawed hemp-derived consumable products in Arkansas. The appeal followed issuance of an injunction by U.S. District Judge Billy Roy Wilson blocking enforcement of Act 629.

Mississippi Struggling to Reconcile Supply and Demand on the Marijuana Front; Unsettled Hemp Rules

Mississippi surprised many observers when a statewide ballot initiative in 2020 went overwhelmingly in support of medical marijuana. After a couple of years of frustrating and largely obstructionist legal wrangling, Mississippi’s medical program is fully up and running now, going on almost two years.

One of the most notable and unique aspects of Mississippi’s program is the absence of any limitations on the number of licenses available to operators. While there are components of the Mississippi laws and regulations governing the program that necessarily limit how many licenses can be issued (e.g., local government opt-outs and distance setback limitations) the program is struggling due in large part to an oversupply of product and not enough patients (as of November 21, 2024, the state reports 48,129 patients). Last legislative session, the Mississippi Legislature modified the state’s medical cannabis law in certain ways that were aimed to improve patient access hurdles, and more amendments are expected in the upcoming session.

On the hemp front, Mississippi lacks any real legislative or regulatory guidance on the subject. Consequently, many in the state view the hemp-derived intoxicating products sold in gas stations and other retail stores as a real problem. Last legislative session, a bill (HB 1676) aimed to regulate intoxicating hemp products failed. Since then, state law enforcement has conducted raids and arrests of retail stores that sell products they believe are illegal under Mississippi law. Also, the Mississippi attorney general recently issued an opinion concluding that hemp-derived THC beverages could be illegal under Mississippi law. We wrote about that opinion here. The Mississippi legislature will almost assuredly revisit legislation governing these products next session while it also explores ways to amend the Medical Cannabis Act.

Texas Low-THC Marijuana Program Continues as Fierce Debates Rage Over Hemp

Texas passed the Texas Compassionate Use legislation in 2015, allowing certain qualified physicians to prescribe low THC products (max of 1% THC by weight) to patients having certain medical conditions. Currently, the state has only licensed three entities, all located in the central region of the state, as “dispensing organizations” to cultivate, process, and dispense low-THC cannabis. While the state has implied it may issue more licenses and a third-party consultant it hired recently recommended that it should, that has not yet occurred. The last application window closed on April 28, 2023. We, along with most everyone in the industry, is watching what Texas ends up doing with this program; everything is supposed to be bigger in Texas, and a real-deal medical cannabis program shouldn’t be any exception.

The hemp world in Texas slightly resembles the one in Arkansas; it’s mired in litigation. Texas has a robust legal and regulatory program that governs hemp and consumable hemp products. That program operated for years without much interruption until the Texas Department of State Health Services (TDSHS) took action in 2020 and 2021 to restrict the sale of certain consumable hemp products. This culminated in the publication of an official statement online in October 2021 stating that Texas law only “allows Consumable Hemp Products in Texas that do not exceed 0.3% Delta-9 . . . THC [, and] [a]ll other forms of THC, including Delta-8 in any concentration and Delta-9 exceeding 0.3% are considered Schedule 1 controlled substances.”

In response, a group of plaintiffs sued the TDSHS and its commissioner seeking to enjoin the “‘effectiveness going forward’ of the amendments to the terms ‘tetrahydrocannabinols; and ‘Marihuana extract’ in the Department’s 2021 Schedule of Controlled Substances.” The trial court granted the requested injunction, ordered the TSDHS to “remove from its currently published Schedule of Controlled Substances the most recent modifications” the subject definitions and any subsequent publications, and “enjoin[ed] the effectiveness going forward of the rule stated on [the Department’s] website that Delta-8 THC in any concentration is considered a Schedule 1 controlled

substance.” The state appealed, the Austin Court of Appeals affirmed, and the matter now sits with the Texas Supreme Court.

THC-infused beverages have also been a focus in Texas recently. As we wrote last month, the Texas Senate Committee on State Affairs held a hearing on October 17, 2024, to discuss how the state might soon regulate THC-infused beverages. That issue will most assuredly be addressed by the Texas legislature this next session.

Louisiana Medical Program Expands Amidst Fight Over Scope of Hemp Program

While Louisiana technically legalized medical marijuana in 1978 and passed several laws in the years that followed in that pursuit, the first products weren’t sold until 2019. The very limited license (only two authorized cultivators and processors) regime is now headed towards a bustling program. The number of dispensaries that can exist in Louisiana is currently capped at 30, but that number will only grow as the patient numbers increase in the regions identified throughout the state.

Louisiana’s hemp program, which is governed by a well-developed regulatory regime, is also in a current state of uncertainty. During the 2024 legislative session, the Legislature amended the hemp laws to restrict where certain hemp-derived products can be sold and their potency. As in Arkansas and Texas, the hemp industry quickly responded with litigation. In that matter, Hemp Assoc. of La. v. Landry, No. 3:24-cv-00871, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, was filed on October 18, 2024. The plaintiffs alleged that the 2018 Farm Bill preempts the legislation and is unconstitutional on other grounds. The state disagreed and moved to dismiss, but on November 19, 2024, the state informed the court that it would stay the effective date of the new legislation so that the parties could fully brief the pending motions and the court could reach a decision. The motions are due to be fully briefed in the coming days.

Georgia Trying to Get Its Act Together

The Georgia Access to Medical Cannabis Commission describes the Georgia law as “much more limited than some other states.” The statute does little more than allow registered people to buy and possess low-THC oil from licensed dispensaries. This oil may contain CBD and up to 5% THC by weight.

Only a select number of licensed producers can grow the cannabis that will eventually be turned into the allowed low-THC oil. As in many other states, the application and licensing process is quite strict.

To obtain a registration card, prospective patients must have a qualifying condition or disease and be registered through their physician. Once a patient has their card, they can buy low-THC oil and possess 20 fluid ounces or less so long as they keep it in the manufacturer-labeled pharmaceutical packaging.

On the hemp side, the Georgia Legislature recently passed SB 494, which Gov. Brian Kemp subsequently signed into law. This law introduces substantial changes to the hemp industry. The Georgia Department of Agriculture is in the process of drafting the corresponding and required agency rules. It appears that most hemp extracts like delta-8-THC, delta-10-THC, HHC, and other cannabinoids remain legal under Georgia law as “consumable hemp products.”

Alabama Medical Marijuana Program on the Ropes While Hemp Flourishes

Sigh… where do we even begin when it comes to medical marijuana in Alabama? There have been more twists and turns than a classic Iron Bowl.

The Legislature approved a medical program in 2021, and recent court hearings suggest that we are potentially no further along after three years, with a possibility of the Legislature being forced to take action to modify (or end) the program.

We have written extensively about the years of litigation and dysfunction that have plagued the Alabama medical marijuana program. In a nutshell, the cap on the number of licenses for various categories (cultivators, processors, dispensaries, etc.) has led to a scenario where applicants dissatisfied with the regulators’ decision to award licenses have sued on multiple occasions, and the regulators have either acceded to the demands or ended up in a court that has not acted quickly to impose order on the process.

In the midst of this chaos, the Legislature had an opportunity to tweak the law but overwhelmingly chose not to do so.

We’re choosing to take the optimistic view that the court system will be able to find a resolution to the years of litigation without putting the matter into the Legislature’s hands. We stress that view is very optimistic, but we should know more by the beginning of 2025.

On a brighter note for cannabis advocates, hemp is growing strong in the state, benefiting largely from a relatively liberal regulatory regime. Although the Legislature considered a significant rollback of hemp sales during the last session, the only law passed was a statewide age-limit on products containing hemp. There have been recent reports of law enforcement activity related to hemp businesses being raided for selling unlawful products, but on the whole Alabama should be considered hemp-friendly for the moment.

Tennessee Marijuana Reform Frustrated While Hemp Market Experiences Growth But Tighter Regulation

For years we were astonished that Tennessee was not a huge marijuana (at least medical) spot, but years of hearing over and over from friends and colleagues in the state have finally convinced us of the political complexities at play.

We, likely as most people, tend to view Tennessee as being dominated by Nashville, Memphis, Chattanooga, and other hemp-friendly areas of east Tennessee. If the decision was up to the citizens of those areas, Tennessee would likely have a well-established marijuana program. But, as it turns out, Tennessee is a big state with widely varying views on all ranges of social issues, including marijuana. For that reason, marijuana proposals have had little success in the largely conservative state Legislature. We still think Tennessee could be a monster player with the right program in place, but we’d be lying if we predicted that was imminent.

On the hemp side, Tennessee was an early adopter, and its hemp industry blossomed for years under a hands-off regulatory regime. In May 2023, Tennessee enacted T.C.A. § 43-27-201, which is an industry-friendly statutory framework for products containing hemp-derived cannabinoids like delta-8 and delta-10 THC. The statute delegated rulemaking authority to the Tennessee Department of Agriculture (TDA) to flesh out its requirements.

That is where the trouble began. In December 2023, TDA published emergency rules that largely aligned with T.C.A. § 43-27-201 with respect to its licensing and labeling requirements, leaving those operators that focus on edible hemp-derived cannabinoid products pleased. But the rules contained a bombshell: specifically, the requirement that hemp contain 0.3% or less total THC, which includes both delta-9 THC and THCA. The TDA maintained this total THC standard in the permanent rules it promulgated in September 2024.

The TDA’s total THC requirement is at odds with Tennessee’s hemp statute, which defines hemp as cannabis containing 0.3% or less delta-9 THC (with no mention of THCA). In reliance on this statutory scheme, many Tennessee hemp companies that focus on psychoactive products have made high-THCA smokable products a large part of their offerings. The TDA’s new rules, which go into effect on December 26, 2024, pose a grave danger to those operators.

Industry groups, including the Tennessee Growers Coalition, are preparing for war to prevent these new rules from going into effect. Stay tuned to Budding Trends for updates on the lawsuits against the TDA that are coming down the pike.

Kentucky Begins Medical Marijuana Program and Remains Hemp Stalwart

The OG of hemp, with the help of its powerful Sen. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky has an outsized responsibility for passage of the two most recent farm bills that have led to the explosion of the hemp industry. Kentucky’s hemp program remains strong, and many of its Congressional delegation represent a bulwark against efforts to severely limit the availability of hemp products.

Kentucky’s medical cannabis program is just now off to the races. Licenses are currently being awarded and industry observers are carefully watching the Bluegrass State’s progress as the program gets off the ground.

Nothing to Show Yet, But South Carolina Begins to Show Signs of Life in Cannabis Reform Efforts

Ah, South Carolina. Its siren song has tempted cannabis advocates for years with its diversity – political, geographical, geological, and otherwise. But to date, nada. We’ve written about the fits and starts with the South Carolina Compassionate Care Act in the past few years. The Legislature has not enacted the law as of yet, but we are keeping our eyes on it during the next legislative session.

On the hemp side, coming from a state that has famously been near the back of the line on cannabis liberalization, we’ll admit that we were surprised to read a recent letter from the solicitor general of South Carolina stating that, as a general rule, hemp beverages containing less than .3% delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis are legal. We suspect that will be a topic of discussion at the next legislative session.

North Carolina Not Quite there on Marijuana , Stalled on Hemp

North Carolina is going to be a monster marijuana jurisdiction, but like Tennessee, the geopolitical makeup of the state has restrained cannabis liberalization to date. Maybe we should have known better than to predict that the Tar Heel State was going to take action on marijuana legislation in an election year in which the speaker of the N.C. House, Tim Moore (R), is running for an open U.S. Congress seat. Passing a marijuana legalization bill was not going to be a political priority and could have given political adversaries an opportunity to paint supporters as soft on crime, even if a majority of the state’s electorate does support some kind of legalization.

For its part, the state Senate passed yet another medical marijuana and hemp regulation bill, House Bill 563, though one of the most restrictive in the country, only to see it stall in the hose. As in years past, Moore has not allowed the House to take a vote on a bill and has cited his “majority of the majority” policy and lack of Republican support in the House as a basis for refusing to bring the Senate bill to the House floor for a vote.

It’s likely not going to move anytime soon, but what’s in HB 563? Half the bill is dedicated to the regulation of hemp, while the second half – the North Carolina Compassionate Care Act – opens the door to legalizing medicinal marijuana. On the medicinal marijuana side, the bill creates a state commission to oversee the distribution of medical marijuana and regulate which medical conditions are eligible for treatment. It also outlines the process for patients to obtain medical cannabis cards, creating restrictions on where cannabis can be smoked, and requires physicians to write prescriptions for patients to use medical cannabis.

Some Senate Republicans expressed concern that legalization of medicinal marijuana was a fast and slippery slope towards legalizing recreational marijuana. To alleviate that concern, an amendment was adopted that clarified that recreational use would remain illegal in North Carolina even if the federal government reclassified or legalized marijuana nationwide.

On the hemp regulation side, HB 563 would require all hemp product manufacturers and distributors to be licensed. In addition, there are new safety and testing standards, marketing and label restrictions, and more strict product regulations on the amount of cannabinoids that can be included in ingestible or inhalable products.

Politically, it makes sense for supporters of medical marijuana to tie its fate to hemp regulation. Hemp regulation has broad bipartisan support and would likely pass both chambers if presented as a standalone bill. By linking hemp regulation to the Compassionate Care Act, medical marijuana supporters are daring their House and Senate colleagues to vote against hemp regulation. For the time being, that leaves the hemp industry with the uncertainty, and opportunity, of North Carolina continuing to have very limited regulations for the industry.

Why Is the Southeast Experiencing Such Explosive, Concentrated Cannabis Activity?

Part of the reason for the accelerated pace of developments of cannabis reform in the Southeast is precisely because the Southeast started cannabis programs later than other parts of the country. As a result, Southeastern cannabis efforts are, on the whole, not as mature as markets in other states. There are examples from other states that legislatures and regulators can look to for how other states in recent years have addressed the issues just now facing Southeastern states.

There is a great scene in the movie Major League where Willie Mays Hayes, played by the wonderful Wesley Snipes, is removed from the Cleveland (then) Indians’ baseball spring training while he sleeps in bed because there is no record of anyone by that name being invited to spring training (because he wasn’t invited). When Willie wakes up in the morning to the sound of potential Indians running sprints, Willie jumps out of bed in his pajamas and starts running, eventually finding himself running between two uniformed players. Because of his remarkable speed (“I hit like Mays, and I run like Hayes”), Willie explodes past the other two even though they had a head start. The manager Lou Brown, played sublimely by the delightful James Gammon, immediately says “[g]et him a uniform.”

What the hell are we talking about? We think the Southeastern cannabis market is a little like Willie Mays Hayes. The market was late to the cannabis industry, but once it arrived it has the benefit of seeing the experiences of other states and, like Willie, has the benefit of hitting the ground running.

Separately, the issue of cannabis reform is ripe for political battles in the Southeast. The region is certain not as socially progressive on most issues like cannabis. After all, in this part of the country there are still knock-down, drag-out fights about whether to allow the sale of beer before noon on Sundays. But the region is proving to be more progressive than many would have thought, in part perhaps because people around these parts have heard anecdotal reports about friends and family who have used cannabis products safely and perhaps in part because we have seen that cannabis liberalization in other parts of the country has not led to the type of Reefer Madness scenarios long feared.

So, What’s Next?

As with most trends, the rapid expansion of cannabis activity mirrors – and is in many ways a microcosm – of the policies, setbacks, and successes experienced across America.

If we were certain what the future holds for cannabis in the Southeastern United States, we would be sitting on an island somewhere instead of writing blog posts. That said, we expect (1) clear, if not sometimes frustratingly paced expansion of medical cannabis across the region; (2) an expansion of qualifying medical conditions and form factors; (3) an eventual tipping point in the direction of adult-use programs; and (4) hemp continuing to see strong sales unless the federal or state governments enact laws to thwart that growth.

At the conclusion of the wonderful Ken Burns’ epic documentary on country music, the great Marty Stuart says the following about the genre:

Country music has something for everybody, and it’s inside the song, it’s inside the characters. It’s really colorful in here. I invite you in.

Cannabis in the Southeastern United States has something for everybody, and maybe not enough for some people. And we certainly have colorful characters making some of the important decisions about the future of cannabis policy in our little corner of the world. We see this area as one of massive potential growth, particularly with the help of the right people. We invite you in.

 

Listen to this Post

Holy Hemp: New Jersey Court Partially Invalidates Hemp Law

On Oct. 10, 2024, a New Jersey Federal District Court made a big decision on hemp. The Court largely invalidated New Jersey’s recent attempt to tighten controls on “intoxicating hemp products” like Delta-8 and Delta-10, which were previously sold in gas stations, smoke shops, and convenience stores without much oversight. The state had put forward amendments aimed at restricting these products to those over 21 and regulating them like cannabis. New Jersey argued that it was time to clamp down on these sales, citing public health concerns and the rising number of minors getting their hands on these potent, unregulated products.

NJ Gov. Phil Murphy had signed off on these amendments despite admitting the law wasn’t perfect. For him, protecting minors was the priority. And today, the Court shared that sentiment—partially. It kept in place only the part that prevents the sale of these products to minors.

As for the rest of the amendment? The Court struck it down. The reason? It found that New Jersey’s approach violated federal law, essentially treating hemp products from out-of-state differently from those produced locally under the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission’s new process. This selective control crossed the line, according to the Dormant Commerce Clause of the Constitution and provisions in the Federal Farm Act, which stops states from blocking the transport of hemp products.

The Court’s decision made it clear that New Jersey does have the power to regulate these sales, but the amendments need legislative fine-tuning to meet federal standards. So, while New Jersey’s push to regulate intoxicating hemp is on pause, this is far from over.

Here’s where the decision makes things complicated for sellers: By Oct. 12, shops were supposed to pull these hemp products from the shelves, including Delta-8 drinks and THC-A gummies. That means, until New Jersey’s Cannabis Regulatory Commission issues new rules, those products are off-limits.

For anyone in the hemp or cannabis business in New Jersey, it’s a loud reminder—stay compliant, stay updated, and be ready to adapt quickly to changes.

by: Benjamin Sheppard of Norris McLaughlin P.A.
©2024 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

For more news on Hemp Legality, visit the NLR Biotech, Food, & Drug section.

Missouri Cannabis Regulators Show Me a Well-Considered Clarification of Earlier Rule Essentially Banning Hemp Products

I can only assume that being a cannabis regulator is a challenging and usually thankless job. The laws are relatively new and constantly evolving. Operators are always pushing the science faster than regulators can promulgate thoughtful new rules. And of course, there is no shortage of bad actors in the cannabis business.

That said, Budding Trends has been tough on cannabis regulators when it seemed warranted. And we’ve had no shortage of material.

We wanted to take this occasion to applaud the recent letter from the Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services announcing a substantial rollback of Gov. Mike Parson’s Executive Order that appeared to ban all “psychoactive cannabis products.”

The governor’s order would, by its terms, essentially destroy the state’s market for products containing hemp-derived THC. To be fair, the stated purpose of the order – to keep psychoactive cannabis products out of the hands of children – is a noble goal and one shared by any responsible operator in the hemp-derived THC business. Unfortunately, the plain language of the order goes much further and threatens to end the sale of most hemp products in Missouri.

In comes Missouri Department of Health & Senior Service Deputy Director and General Counsel Richard Moore to the rescue. In a recent letter, Moore “clarify[ied] any misunderstandings about the Department’s efforts to keep Missourians and their children safe from psychoactive cannabis products, sometimes called intoxicating cannabis products.” As part of this clarification, and in furtherance of the department’s commitment to “transparency in its enforcement efforts,” the department will limit its focus to (1) hemp-derived THC products targeting children and (2) “any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, unfair practice or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact in connection with the sale or advertisement of [hemp-derived THC products].”

The department does not have any intention, however, of initiating enforcement actions against other hemp-derived THC products. Specifically, “[h]emp or cannabidiol (CBD) products which are collected by extraction and have not been changed into a new substance, such as hemp protein powders, hemp milk, hemp flower, hemp teas or other drinks, CBD gummies, CBD drink additives, or foods with CBD” are not the focus of the department’s enforcement efforts.

I believe this represents a fair compromise that accomplishes both the governor’s stated and worthwhile goals of eliminating deceptive hemp operators and those who would sell hemp-derived THC products to children, as well as keeping the hemp regime implemented by the Missouri Legislature in place.

More states would do well to consider this approach. For an example of the opposite approach, consider our recent post on Mississippi’s potential ban on hemp beverages. Consider, too, a much different approach taken by the solicitor general of South Carolina, which we will write about in the coming days.

And perhaps most importantly, consider whether Congress can fashion a similar compromise as it considers federal hemp policy in the next Farm Bill in the coming months.

A Study in THC-O: Unpacking the Recent Anderson Case

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit handed the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) a big loss when it comes to hemp. In Anderson v. Diamondback Investment Group, LLC, the court ruled that the DEA’s interpretation, which classified a host of hemp-derived products as illegal, was incorrect.

I’ve previously written about the impact of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo on cannabis and hemp in this blog, and Anderson is one of the first cases to show how courts will handle cannabis law post-Chevron. In Loper, the Supreme Court ended the long-standing doctrine of Chevron deference. That doctrine required federal courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute, so long as it was “reasonable,” even if the court didn’t agree with it. Now, courts don’t have to give the DEA (or any agency) that kind of leeway. If the agency’s interpretation isn’t the best reading of the statute, it is merely persuasive material at best.

This reminds me of my days of clerking on the Court of Common Pleas. Oftentimes, lawyers would cite other non-binding Common Pleas decisions, and the judge would merely say he would consider them but did not view them as binding. It’s almost like déjà vu for me now with Loper, on a grander scale.

Since Loper was decided, everyone has had theories about how it could impact things like cannabis rescheduling or the legality of hemp-derived cannabinoids. In particular, the DEA has been flexing its muscles with opinion letters about what it considers to be legal or illegal cannabinoids. This is where Loper comes into play. In theory, the DEA can still issue its opinions, but the courts aren’t going to roll over and accept those interpretations without question anymore. That’s exactly what happened in Anderson.

Without getting into the weeds of the case too much, here’s the gist: an employee was fired after drug tests allegedly showed cannabis use. She sued her employer, claiming she was using legal hemp-derived products. The court said she didn’t provide enough evidence to prove those products contained less than 0.3% Delta-9 THC—the magic number that separates hemp from cannabis under federal law. So, in the district court’s view, she did not have a case.

But the important part for us is what the court said about the 2018 Farm Bill and the DEA’s interpretation of cannabinoids like THC-O. THC-O is a synthetic compound made from hemp derivatives, and there’s been a long debate about whether products like THC-O or Delta-8 THC fall under the “hemp” umbrella.

The DEA considers synthetic cannabinoid-controlled substances, and they’ve argued that products like THC-O are illegal. The Ninth Circuit took on this issue a few years ago in AK Futures LLC v. Boyd Street Distro, LLC, where they ruled that Delta-8 THC products derived from hemp with less than 0.3% Delta-9 THC were legal under the 2018 Farm Bill.

In Anderson, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the Ninth Circuit’s logic, holding that “we think the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of the 2018 Farm Act is the better of the two.” The court went even further, rejecting the DEA’s argument outright, thanks to the post-Loper world we now live in, where the DEA’s interpretation no longer gets automatic deference.

Here’s the key takeaway: according to the Fourth Circuit, if a product is derived from hemp and doesn’t contain more than 0.3% Delta-9 THC, it’s legal—even if it’s been processed into something like Delta-8 THC. But if a cannabinoid is made entirely from synthetic materials, it’s not hemp, and it’s not protected by the 2018 Farm Bill.

Now, before anyone starts thinking this is an all-clear for hemp products, there’s still a lot to unpack. While Anderson pushes back against the DEA’s overreach, it doesn’t mean every hemp-derived product is automatically legal. The 0.3% Delta-9 THC threshold is still critical, and businesses need to make sure they’re playing by the rules. Plus, this ruling doesn’t mean states won’t have their own say about what’s legal within their borders.

To sum it all up, the Anderson decision is important because it reinforces that courts are not bound by the DEA’s interpretations, especially post-Loper. This decision helps the hemp-derived cannabinoid market. As always, businesses must stay compliant with both federal and state laws to avoid legal headaches.

For more news on Hemp Classification Litigation, visit the NLR Biotech, Food, and Drug section.

George Washington’s Whisky Distillery, 21st Century Edition

You might think the laws of King Edward I of England (1239-1307), George Washington’s whisky distillery, and an 1807 “Treatise on the Law of Idiocy and Lunacy” have little to do with the federal criminal code of 2024. And you might think they have even less to do with contemporary federal regulation of cannabis. But the Supreme Court’s test for the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms requires litigants and courts to become historians scouring the archives. So, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held a federal criminal statute barring unlawful users of controlled substances from possessing firearms and ammunition, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), was unconstitutional as applied. The government’s prosecution of a “non-violent, marijuana smoking gunowner” was dismissed (United States v. Connelly, — F.4th — (5th Cir. 2024).

Those intrigued by the ins and outs of historical firearms regulations, and the back and forth between the Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit on that issue, can study the court’s opinion. The facts, however, were straightforward and seemingly commonplace. The defendant “would at times smoke marijuana as a sleep aid and for anxiety.” So do countless Americans, in full compliance with applicable state laws allowing just such uses. The defendant owned a firearm. Again, nothing remarkable there. Yet federal officials charged the defendant with violating criminal law. The Fifth Circuit put an end to the prosecution, as it did in a similar case last year, United States v. Daniels, 77 F.4th 337 (5th Cir. 2023), vacated, 144 S. Ct. 2707 (2024) (for reconsideration in the light of United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2024)), which we discussed last year here.

Three takeaways stand out for the industry:

1. The federal classification of cannabis does not trump constitutional rights.

Noticeably absent from the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning was any deference to the federal scheduling of cannabis as a controlled substance. That may be due to the unique historical test applicable to the Second Amendment. Still, the opinion shows the Constitution has no cannabis exception. Judicial statements like “[m]arijuana user or not,” the defendant “is a member of our political community and thus” has constitutional rights are a welcome change in emphasis. When facing an enforcement challenge, industry participants should evaluate constitutional challenges they may have. The Constitution may just win the day.

2. Analogies to regulation of alcohol carried more weight than analogies to other regulatory schemes.

The government tried to analogize cannabis users to several regulatory schemes, including a tenuous (at best) analogy to mental health. Nothing doing there. The Fifth Circuit instead analogized to alcohol regulation, concluding that both alcohol and cannabis can cause a temporary, potentially “impairing influence.” So, just as the federal government does not charge firearms owners with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) because they occasionally consume alcohol, the government could not prosecute the defendant because she occasionally consumed cannabis.

This decision suggests that future enforcement targets might find success in analogizing cannabis to alcohol. Subject to appropriate regulatory control and responsible personal use, alcohol consumption is an accepted part of American society. Indeed, as the Fifth Circuit took pains to note, American acceptance of alcohol consumption dates to the colonial period. Just ask George Washington. And it’s still going strong today. Manufacturers and distributors of alcoholic beverages can advertise their products widely — watch the Super Bowl — and they benefit from access to the banking system, stock market, and other financial opportunities closed to the cannabis industry. Situating the cannabis industry in that established history may help show that cannabis should follow a similar pattern. And it may call into question differential regulatory treatment of the two industries.

3. Supposed “dangerousness” cannot justify treating cannabis differently.

The Fifth Circuit declined the government’s invitations to analogize cannabis users to “dangerous” persons, like political traitors, whom the Constitution might permit disarming. That is, of course, a marked shift from the historical justification for the federal ban on cannabis — a supposed propensity to “incite[] violent crimes,” that modern medicine shows is false.

Rejecting the supposed “dangerousness” of occasional cannabis users furthers questions about whether prohibitions on cannabis serve a legitimate purpose. Recall Justice Clarence Thomas’s 2021 statement questioning the federal approach as a contradictory and unstable “half-in, half-out regime” that “strains basic principles of federalism and conceals traps for the unwary” (Standing Akimbo, LLC v. United States, 594 U.S. 2236 (2021) (Thomas, J., statement respecting denial of certiorari)). As more courts reject federal attempts to treat cannabis users differently from other citizens, future litigants may consider asserting constitutional due process or equal protection challenges to regulations. After all, as Connelly shows, courts stand ready to vindicate constitutional rights, “[m]arijunana user or not.”

FTC/FDA Send Letters to THC Edibles Companies Warning of Risks to Children

Earlier this week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent cease-and-desist letters to several companies warning them that their products, which were marketed to mimic popular children’s snacks, ran the risk of unintended consumption of the Delta-8 THC by children. In addition to the FDA’s concerns regarding marketing an unsafe food additive, the agencies warned that imitating non-THC-containing food products often consumed by children through the use of advertising or labeling is misleading under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC noted that “preventing practices that present unwarranted health and safety risks, particularly to children, is one of the Commission’s highest priorities.”

The FTC’s focus on these particular companies and products shouldn’t come as a surprise. One such company advertises edible products labelled as “Stoney Ranchers Hard Candy,” mimicking the common Jolly Ranchers candy, and “Trips Ahoy” closely resembling the well-known “Chips Ahoy.” Another company advertises a product closely resembling a Nerds Rope candy, with similar background coloring, and copy-cats of the Nerds logo and mascot. This is not the first time the FTC has warned companies about the dangers of advertising products containing THC in a way that could mislead consumers, particularly minors. In July of 2023, the FTC sent cease-and-desist letters to six organizations for the same violations alleged this week – there companies copied popular snack brands such as Doritos and Cheetos, mimicking the brands’ color, mascot, font, bag style, and more.

This batch of warning letters orders the companies to stop marketing the edibles immediately, to review their products for compliance, and to inform the FTC within 15 days of the specific actions taken to address the FTC’s concerns. The companies also are required to report to the FDA on corrective actions taken.

Supreme Court Decision Overturns Chevron: Impact on Cannabis Industry

Last month, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision and opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, significantly overruling the nearly 40-year-old precedent set by Chevron. The Chevron decision required federal courts to defer to a government agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute unless that interpretation was “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary” to the statute. This meant that if an agency such as the DEA published a bulletin or letter interpreting an ambiguous law, courts were generally bound to follow this interpretation due to the agency’s presumed expertise.

The Shift in Legal Interpretation

Loper Bright Enterprises has fundamentally changed this legal landscape. Now courts, rather than government agencies, are considered the best equipped to interpret ambiguous statutes. This shift means that a government agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute is now merely persuasive and not binding on the courts. This can be likened to a Pennsylvania court interpreting a Pennsylvania law and considering, but not being bound by, a Delaware state court’s interpretation of a similar corporate law. Just as Pennsylvania courts can choose to defer to, distinguish from, or disregard Delaware court decisions, federal courts now have the same discretion regarding agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.

Impact on the Cannabis Industry

This change has significant implications for the cannabis industry. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) enforces federal drug laws and has issued numerous letters and bulletins determining the legality of various cannabis substances. For example, the DEA issued opinions that seemingly argued that Delta-8 THC products and THCA products were not allowed under the 2018 Farm Bill. I have generally disagreed with these interpretations, believing that the DEA incorrectly cited statutes related to hemp at harvest rather than downstream products.

With Loper Bright Enterprises, these DEA letters will lose their authoritative value. Courts are no longer bound to follow DEA interpretations and can more readily consider arguments opposing the DEA’s stance. This development is critical for the cannabis industry, as it opens the door for courts to reinterpret federal drug laws and potentially challenge the DEA’s restrictive interpretations of the 2018 Farm Bill.

The Importance of This Shift

The overruling of Chevron by Loper Bright Enterprises marks a pivotal change in administrative law, particularly impacting the cannabis industry. This shift of interpretive authority from government agencies to the courts means there is now greater potential for legal challenges to restrictive interpretations of cannabis laws. This change enhances the ability of cannabis businesses and advocates to contest adverse decisions and interpretations by the DEA and other agencies, potentially leading to more favorable outcomes for the industry.

It Ain’t Over ‘til It’s Over: IRS Reminds Taxpayers That Section 280E Applies to Marijuana Companies Until Rescheduling Becomes Law

This is a tax blog. Stay with me – it’s short.

While marijuana advocates celebrate the potential rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, the taxman has made clear that marijuana remains a Schedule I substance subject to Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code. For those who aren’t cannabis tax specialists, 280E provides that:

No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.

Marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance and is subject to the limitations of the Internal Revenue Code. As we previously reported, the Justice Department recently published a notice of proposed rulemaking with the Federal Register to initiate a formal rulemaking process to consider rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act. That change would remove marijuana from the purview of 280E.

Predictably, a number of cannabis operators couldn’t help themselves and began filing amended returns seeking to avail themselves of what they apparently felt was a change in the law. The response from the IRS is clear:

Taxpayers seeking a refund of taxes paid related to Internal Revenue Code Section 280E by filing amended returns are not entitled to a refund or payment. Until a final rule is published, marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance and is subject to the limitations of Internal Revenue Code Section 280E.

The reasoning is simple – marijuana is a Schedule I substance until it is not. While there is currently in place a process that could lead to the rescheduling of marijuana, it has not actually been rescheduled.

Cannabis operators can dream of a time when they will not be subject to the ravages of 280E, but for now that remains just out of grasp, albeit tantalizingly close.

As usual, stay tuned to Budding Trends. We’ll be monitoring all the impacts of rescheduling, including tax implications like this one.

Listen to this post

DOJ Confirms Moving Marijuana to Schedule III; Sidesteps Anticipated Impact on State Cannabis Markets

On May 16, 2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ) initiated the formal rulemaking process to move marijuana to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. The DOJ’s notice of proposed rulemaking unfortunately sidesteps the hard questions about the impact of rescheduling on the existing state adult-use and medical cannabis markets.

Summary of Content

The 92-page notice of proposed rulemaking primarily summarizes and comments on last year’s recommendations by the Department of Health and Human Services to reschedule marijuana, as well as related legal concerns such as compliance with international treaty obligation. The DOJ emphasizes that if marijuana is transferred to Schedule III, “the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, and possession of marijuana would also remain subject to applicable criminal prohibitions under the CSA [Controlled Substances Act],” and that marijuana would remain subject to applicable provisions of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.

With respect to the critical question of impact on the cannabis markets, however, the DOJ is silent and merely states that it is “seeking comment on the practical consequences of rescheduling marijuana.”

By way of explanation, the DOJ offers:

“DOJ recognizes this action may have unique economic impacts. As stated above, marijuana is subject to a number of State laws that have allowed a multibillion dollar industry to develop. DOJ acknowledges that there may be large impacts related to Federal taxes and research and development investment for the pharmaceutical industry, among other things. DOJ is specifically soliciting comments on the economic impact of this proposed rule. DOJ will revise this section at the final rules stage if warranted after consideration of any comments received.” (Emphasis added.)

Robust Public Comments Expected

For an industry that has been eagerly awaiting to hear how the DOJ will approach rules that address the interplay between existing state cannabis laws and the complex web of federal laws around Schedule III drugs, the DOJ’s notice is disappointing and may not bode well for a smooth rulemaking process. DOJ will accept public comments for 60 days once the notice of proposed rulemaking has been published in the Federal Register. We can expect robust commentary from cannabis businesses, state regulators, trade organizations and ancillary industries.

Regardless of the outcome of the final rulemaking, it seems apparent that clarity through congressional action is needed more than ever.

FTC Moves to Strike Most Noncompetes: Considerations for Cannabis Companies

As Bradley previously reported, the Federal Trade Commission at the beginning of last year issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to effectively ban employee noncompete provisions as an unfair method of competition in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. Following a 16-month administrative process that drew more than 26,000 public comments, the FTC on April 23, 2024, issued its final rule that will, according to the FTC, “promote competition by banning noncompetes nationwide, protecting the fundamental freedom of workers to change jobs, increasing innovation, and fostering new business formation.”

Key Features of the Final Rule

Key features of the final rule include:

  • Defining “noncompete clauses” as a term or condition of employment that either “prohibits” a worker from, “penalizes” a worker for, or “functions to prevent” a worker from (a) seeking or accepting work in the United States with a different person where such work would begin after the conclusion of the employment that includes the term or condition; or (b) operating a business in the United States after the conclusion of the employment that includes the term or condition.
  • Treating existing noncompetes differently depending on the category of worker.
    • For “senior executives,” existing noncompetes may remain in force. The term “senior executive” refers to workers earning more than $151,164 who are in a “policy-making position.” As so defined, the FTC estimates that senior executives represent less than 0.75% of all workers.
    • For all other categories of workers, existing noncompetes will be unenforceable following the effective date (i.e., 120 days following its publication on the Federal Register).
  • Banning new noncompetes for all workers following the effective date.
  • Requiring employers to provide “clear and conspicuous notice” to workers who are not senior executives and are subject to existing noncompetes that such provisions are no longer enforceable. The FTC included model language in the final rule that satisfies the notice requirements.
  • Excluding banks but not bank affiliates. Because the FTC does not have regulatory authority over banks, it does not apply to banks. The rule does apply to bank affiliates however as those entities are within FTC jurisdiction.
  • Excluding nonprofit entities. The final rule does not apply to nonprofit entities, such as nonprofit hospitals, as they fall outside of the jurisdiction of the FTC Act. The FTC notes, however, that not all entities that claim tax-exempt status in their tax filings are automatically outside of the scope of the final rule. Rather, the FTC applies a two-part test to determine whether the purported nonprofit is within the scope of the FTC Act, focusing on the source of the entity’s income and the destination of the income.
  • Excluding noncompetes in the sale of business context. The final rule generally does not apply to business owners upon the “bona fide” sale of a business. The final rule expanded the sale of business exception found in the proposed rule.
  • The final rule does not apply where a cause of action related to a noncompete accrued prior to the effective date of the final rule.

What Does the New Rule Mean for the Cannabis Industry in Particular?

The FTC contends that the final rule will benefit the U.S. economy by, among other things, increasing worker earnings, reducing healthcare costs, spurring new business formation, and enhancing innovation. But what will it mean for the U.S. cannabis industry specifically?

As we’ve written about before, there’s a significant amount of proprietary information that may give players in the cannabis space a competitive edge – e.g., customer lists, grow processes, or unique cannabinoid extracts, plants, and products. Because marijuana is still a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substance Act, however, there are open questions about whether an entity engaged in marijuana-related commercial activity can avail itself of federal law protections, such as U.S. patent and trademark laws. If an entity cannot avail itself of those federal law protections, the ability to turn to state contract law becomes even more important to protect its investments. That’s where noncompetes could come in — going a long way to protect an individual from taking and utilizing a company’s or individual’s investments. The FTC final rule largely would put an end to the ability to use noncompete protections, save for the exceptions outlined above. That may be an even bigger blow to the cannabis industry as compared to other industries who can readily utilize federal law protections. On the other hand, the cannabis industry is largely transient and collaborative, and many cannabis companies and individuals in the industry may be willing to take the good with the bad when it comes to the absence of noncompete rules.

What’s Next?

First, the final rule is not yet in effect. It will go into effect 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

Second, we expect there will be significant legal challenges and efforts to halt the implementation of the rule.

The final rule was issued following a 3-2 vote by the commissioners, with the two newly appointed Republican commissioners – Melissa Holyoak and Andrew Ferguson – voting against the rule. In their prepared remarks, the dissenting commissioners questioned the FTC’s legal authority to take such sweeping action.

The final rule has already prompted a legal challenge. Shortly after the FTC’s public meeting approving the final rule, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a statement indicating its intent to “sue the FTC to block this unnecessary and unlawful rule and put other agencies on notice that such overreach will not go unchecked.” True to its word, the Chamber filed yesterday a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Federal Trade Commission, Case No. 6:24-cv-00148 (E.D.Tex. filed April 24, 2024)). The lawsuit mounts a number of legal challenges to the final rule.