Cannabis & Craft Beer Blog

An Ohio federal judge has blocked the enforcement of Ohio’s statewide hemp ban. In two consecutive cases, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio has found Ohio’s prohibition on intoxicating hemp products to be in violation of the United States Constitution. This ruling temporarily suspends the Ohio law and allows the named plaintiffs to resume operations until August 21, 2026, when the temporary restraining order expires.

In 2025, the Ohio General Assembly adopted a comprehensive bill consolidating Ohio’s cannabis laws and establishing a strict regulatory framework for hemp-derived products. In final form, Senate Bill 56 (“SB 56”) narrowed the definition of hemp to exclude any substance with more than a 0.3% THC concentration. Substances with a THC concentration greater than 0.3% constitute marijuana. Although the cultivation and sale of marijuana in Ohio is generally outlawed, companies may partake if they obtain a license from the Ohio Division of Cannabis Control. As a condition to obtaining a license, retailers and cultivators must not dispense marijuana from, obtain marijuana from, or transfer marijuana to, a location outside the State of Ohio. Companies located outside of Ohio are therefore placed at a disadvantage against licensed, in-state operators.

Leading up to and following SB 56’s effective date in March 2026, hemp companies have sued to prevent Ohio from enforcing the hemp ban. In the first of these lawsuits, members of the hemp industry claimed that Governor DeWine’s veto—which removed legal exceptions for drinkable hemp-derived beverages—violated principles of Ohio constitutional law. This challenge ultimately failed with the Ohio Supreme Court finding the veto to be within the Governor’s authority.

After failing at the state level, hemp companies pursued alternative means of redress under federal constitutional law. In two separate actions, out-of-state companies have sued for relief from SB 56. Both cases involve out-of-state companies claiming that Ohio’s hemp ban violates the dormant Commerce Clause under the United States Constitution. The dormant Commerce Clause is an implied doctrine of the U. S. Constitution that prohibits states from passing laws that discriminate against interstate commerce. This doctrine prevents states from erecting trade barriers that disrupt the free flow of commerce throughout the national market.

Although SB 56 applies the same restrictions to both in-state and out-of-state companies, only companies that source and distribute their products in Ohio can acquire the requisite license to do so. Out-of-state companies argue that “SB 56 has created an impermissible burden on interstate commerce and deprived them of their right to participate in the interstate market for federally legal intoxicating hemp products in violation of the United States Constitution.” A judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio agreed with this argument in two proceedings disputing SB 56’s validity: (1) Titan Logistics Group, LLC, et al. v. Tischler, and (2) Delta Beverage, Inc., et al. v. Canepa. Judge Helmick concluded that the law places a disproportionate burden on out-of-state producers and that a dormant Commerce Clause claim is likely to succeed on the merits. In both cases, Judge Helmick issued a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) that prevents the State of Ohio from enforcing SB 56. The first TRO for the Titan case expired on June 29, but the second—issued on August 7 for the Delta case—will not expire until August 21.

While in effect, the TRO prohibits any enforcement action related to the definition of “hemp.” This temporarily allows the plaintiffs involved in the Delta lawsuit to resume the sale and cultivation of previously banned hemp and hemp-derived products, though it does not apply to non-parties to the litigation.

The Titan case is currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. A favorable ruling could lift the hemp restrictions for all companies operating or seeking to operate within Ohio. Companies should continue to comply with the codified version of SB 56 until a final ruling occurs.

Please contact a member of the KMK Law Cannabis & Craft Beer Services team should your business need assistance with navigating these new rules, or any future revisions, judgments, rules, or regulations.