The Congressional Analysis Service (CRS) issued a report on Aug. 20 that dives into federal interpretations of hemp, authorized challenges to state legal guidelines limiting THC merchandise and concerns for Congress associated to the 2018 Farm Invoice.
The report, authored by Legislative Legal professional Dorothy Kafka, comes as federal and state lawmakers proceed to wrangle over an intoxicating hemp product market that mushroomed all through the nation following Congress federally legalizing hemp past state pilot packages practically seven years in the past.
Because the 2018 Farm Invoice, greater than a dozen states have enacted laws to completely prohibit intoxicating hemp merchandise, whereas different states have banned synthetically derived cannabinoids or particular sorts of merchandise. In the meantime, some states regulate the merchandise as hashish or shopper items, and others have allowed the merchandise to stay out there with no rules.
Beneath federal regulation, “hashish” is categorized into hemp (under 0.3% delta-9 THC on a dry-weight foundation) and marijuana (above 0.3% THC), Kafka defined within the CRS report. Nonetheless, the patchwork of state legal guidelines has unfolded with out a clear path from the federal authorities.
“A few of these legal guidelines—comparable to these in Virginia and Arkansas—prohibit sure actions involving sure hashish merchandise by together with them of their state managed substances legal guidelines,” she wrote. “Numerous events inside the hashish business have challenged a few of these states’ legal guidelines on the bottom that (1) the 2018 Farm Invoice preempts these legal guidelines, and (2) the state legal guidelines violate the dormant Commerce Clause.”
Authorized Challenges to State Legal guidelines
Associated to the preemption argument, the 2018 Farm Invoice particularly prevents states from regulating the transportation or cargo of hemp “via” their boundaries (interstate commerce) however doesn’t cease states from regulating intrastate hemp commerce. Additionally, nothing within the federal laws limits states from adopting legal guidelines to control hemp extra stringently (simply not much less stringently) than the 2018 Farm Invoice.
The U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion in June 2025 confirming this, dealing a victory to Arkansas state officers who’ve been making an attempt to implement a ban on sure hemp-derived cannabinoids for the previous two years through the passage of Act 629.
Particularly, the plaintiffs in that case argued that Congress had meant to “federally defend hemp” within the 2018 Farm Invoice.
“The Eighth Circuit rejected this argument, figuring out as an alternative that the textual content and construction of the 2018 Farm Invoice reveals that Congress needed solely to ‘facilitate state legalization of hemp, if a state needs to,’ and to ‘guarantee different states don’t develop into a hurdle to an in-state hemp business,’” Kafka wrote. “The court docket defined: “[J]ust as a result of states could legalize hemp beneath the 2018 Farm Invoice doesn’t imply they need to.”
Beneath the dormant Commerce Clause, the federal authorities prevents states from passing legal guidelines that inhibit interstate commerce or that present in-state protectionist measures that impede a nationwide marketplace for items and providers.
When Virginia handed Senate Invoice 903, which turned efficient in July 2023, the commonwealth redefined hemp merchandise and industrial hemp extracts as items containing not more than 0.3% in complete THC, which elements in THCA and every other type of THC, comparable to delta-8.
In a lawsuit that included two hemp companies and one state resident, the plaintiffs argued that S.B. 903 would discriminate towards out-of-state consumers by stopping them from accessing Virginia hemp.
The U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in January 2025 that Virginia’s regulation didn’t discriminate towards out-of-state pursuits as a result of it utilized to in-state and out-of-state consumers alike.
“The court docket additional held that the regulation doesn’t unjustifiably burden interstate commerce, and due to this fact it affirmed the district court docket’s dedication that the plaintiffs failed to ascertain a probability of success on their dormant Commerce Clause declare,” Kafka wrote on this week’s CRS report.
Federal Interpretations
Along with the authorized challenges to state legal guidelines, Kafka outlined how a pair of circuit rulings collide with the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) interpretation of the 2018 Farm Invoice’s definition of hemp, earlier than she offered 4 key concerns for Congress.
Particularly, the DEA decided in August 2020 that “all synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols,” comparable to delta-8 THC and THC-O, stay Schedule I federally managed substances, based on the company’s interim closing rule.
Roughly a 12 months later, Terrence L. Boos, Ph.D., chief of the Drug and Chemical Analysis Part of the DEA’s Diversion Management Division, authored an opinion letter to the Alabama Board of Pharmacy stating that the DEA believes delta-8 THC synthetically produced from non-cannabis supplies is a managed substance beneath federal regulation.
Though intoxicating delta-8 THC is of course occurring in hashish, it’s typically transformed in a lab from nonintoxicating CBD.
The U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Might 2022 colliding with the DEA’s interpretation, when a federal decide utilized the DEA’s argument to delta-8 THC in a trademark infringement and copyright dispute between AK Futures LLC and Boyd Road Distro LLC in Nevada. The decide dominated that delta-8 THC is authorized beneath the 2018 Farm Invoice.
“The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the plaintiff’s delta-8 THC merchandise match inside the statutory definition of hemp as a result of the plaintiff’s uncontradicted proof indicated that the merchandise have been ‘hemp-derived’ and contained ‘lower than 0.3% of delta-9 THC,’” Kafka wrote within the CRS report. “The court docket held that the 2018 Farm Invoice definition didn’t depend upon the way during which derivatives, extracts and cannabinoids have been produced.”
In February 2023, Boos additionally declared that THC-O was a Schedule I managed substance in a letter to worldwide hashish lawyer Rod Kight, a dedication Boos mentioned was made on the truth that THC-O doesn’t happen naturally within the hashish plant—it’s a semi-synthetic analogue derived from THC.
Nonetheless, the U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in September 2024 that THC-O meets the authorized definition of hemp beneath the 2018 Farm Invoice, once more veering from Boos’ interpretation. The appellate case stemmed from a North Carolina resident, Tonya Anderson, getting fired from her job with Diamondback Funding Group LLC for failing two drug checks. Anderson argued she consumed authorized hemp merchandise, however Diamondback referenced the DEA’s 2023 opinion letter and argued THC-O was not authorized.
“The Fourth Circuit rejected the defendant’s argument and as an alternative agreed with the Ninth Circuit in AK Futures that the 2018 Farm Invoice definition unambiguously establishes that ‘hemp’ consists of ‘all’ cannabinoids, and derivatives and extracts of hashish, as long as they don’t cross the 0.3% delta-9 THC threshold,” Kafka wrote. “In response to the court docket, whether or not a substance is taken into account hemp doesn’t depend upon the way it was manufactured however relatively whether or not it comes from hashish.
“The court docket additionally famous that, in gentle of the U.S. Supreme Court docket’s determination in Loper Vibrant v. Raimondo overturning the Chevron doctrine, the court docket wouldn’t have to defer to DEA’s interpretation even when the court docket had decided that the statutory definition was ambiguous [in the 2018 Farm Bill].”
The court docket decided that the definition of hemp was unambiguous.
Issues for Congress
In gentle of the federal interpretations and authorized challenges to state legal guidelines resulting in uncertainty and disagreement over the 2018 Farm Invoice’s definition of hemp, Kafka provided 4 concerns for Congress shifting ahead.
1.) Ought to Congress revise its definition of hemp and make clear which cannabinoid merchandise are excluded from the definition of marijuana beneath the Managed Substances Act (CSA)?
In July, Kentucky U.S. Sens. Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell, each Republicans, squared off on this query, disagreeing over a path ahead for consumable hemp merchandise.
Particularly, McConnell needed to connect language to an agricultural spending invoice that might have made hemp-derived merchandise containing artificial compounds and/or quantifiable quantities of THC or THCA—or different cannabinoids which have comparable results on people or animals—unlawful. However Paul prevailed in eradicating that attachment.
Comparable proposals have been provided final Congress as lawmakers tried—however finally delayed—to go a farm invoice reauthorization bundle that included an modification to redefine hemp.
“Such an modification would take into account all THC for the needs of legally figuring out what’s hemp and what’s marijuana,” Kafka wrote. “This variation would convey sure THC merchandise again beneath the CSA and DEA regulation which might be at the moment thought-about to be hemp or are in an unsure space of regulation.”
2.) Ought to Congress take into account different amendments to the definition of hemp to undertake the DEA’s interpretation that “synthetically derived” THC stays a Schedule I managed substance?
“Utilizing the time period ‘synthetically derived’ could elevate new questions as to what Congress means by artificial, until it have been clearly outlined,” Kafka wrote. “How it will be outlined would have an effect on which merchandise could be regulated by the CSA. Congress may additionally permit company and judicial interpretations to play out with out congressional intervention.”
3.) Ought to Congress take into account amending the categorical preemption provision to make clear which state legal guidelines are preempted?
This query comes as authorized challenges to New Jersey regulation and Wyoming regulation associated to restrictions for sure THC merchandise stay pending within the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Tenth circuits, Kafka identified.
“To the extent Congress seeks to permit states to ban sure hemp merchandise solely, Congress may make clear that states could regulate the possession, use or sale of hemp extra stringently than the farm invoice does; at the moment, the financial savings clause provision refers solely to the manufacturing of hemp,” she wrote. “To the extent Congress would like to restrict the states’ energy to ban these substances, Congress may make clear the legal guidelines it seeks to preempt.”
4.) Ought to Congress take into account marijuana’s standing beneath the CSA, which might have an effect on how cannabinoid merchandise that aren’t deemed to be hemp could be regulated?
Each Congress and the chief department, via the Division of Justice/DEA, have the authority to schedule, reschedule or deschedule substances beneath the CSA.
“DEA is at the moment contemplating whether or not to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III through formal rulemaking,” Kafka wrote. “Laws was launched within the 118th Congress that might have eliminated marijuana from regulation beneath the CSA.”
The Congressional Analysis Service (CRS) issued a report on Aug. 20 that dives into federal interpretations of hemp, authorized challenges to state legal guidelines limiting THC merchandise and concerns for Congress associated to the 2018 Farm Invoice.
The report, authored by Legislative Legal professional Dorothy Kafka, comes as federal and state lawmakers proceed to wrangle over an intoxicating hemp product market that mushroomed all through the nation following Congress federally legalizing hemp past state pilot packages practically seven years in the past.
Because the 2018 Farm Invoice, greater than a dozen states have enacted laws to completely prohibit intoxicating hemp merchandise, whereas different states have banned synthetically derived cannabinoids or particular sorts of merchandise. In the meantime, some states regulate the merchandise as hashish or shopper items, and others have allowed the merchandise to stay out there with no rules.
Beneath federal regulation, “hashish” is categorized into hemp (under 0.3% delta-9 THC on a dry-weight foundation) and marijuana (above 0.3% THC), Kafka defined within the CRS report. Nonetheless, the patchwork of state legal guidelines has unfolded with out a clear path from the federal authorities.
“A few of these legal guidelines—comparable to these in Virginia and Arkansas—prohibit sure actions involving sure hashish merchandise by together with them of their state managed substances legal guidelines,” she wrote. “Numerous events inside the hashish business have challenged a few of these states’ legal guidelines on the bottom that (1) the 2018 Farm Invoice preempts these legal guidelines, and (2) the state legal guidelines violate the dormant Commerce Clause.”
Authorized Challenges to State Legal guidelines
Associated to the preemption argument, the 2018 Farm Invoice particularly prevents states from regulating the transportation or cargo of hemp “via” their boundaries (interstate commerce) however doesn’t cease states from regulating intrastate hemp commerce. Additionally, nothing within the federal laws limits states from adopting legal guidelines to control hemp extra stringently (simply not much less stringently) than the 2018 Farm Invoice.
The U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion in June 2025 confirming this, dealing a victory to Arkansas state officers who’ve been making an attempt to implement a ban on sure hemp-derived cannabinoids for the previous two years through the passage of Act 629.
Particularly, the plaintiffs in that case argued that Congress had meant to “federally defend hemp” within the 2018 Farm Invoice.
“The Eighth Circuit rejected this argument, figuring out as an alternative that the textual content and construction of the 2018 Farm Invoice reveals that Congress needed solely to ‘facilitate state legalization of hemp, if a state needs to,’ and to ‘guarantee different states don’t develop into a hurdle to an in-state hemp business,’” Kafka wrote. “The court docket defined: “[J]ust as a result of states could legalize hemp beneath the 2018 Farm Invoice doesn’t imply they need to.”
Beneath the dormant Commerce Clause, the federal authorities prevents states from passing legal guidelines that inhibit interstate commerce or that present in-state protectionist measures that impede a nationwide marketplace for items and providers.
When Virginia handed Senate Invoice 903, which turned efficient in July 2023, the commonwealth redefined hemp merchandise and industrial hemp extracts as items containing not more than 0.3% in complete THC, which elements in THCA and every other type of THC, comparable to delta-8.
In a lawsuit that included two hemp companies and one state resident, the plaintiffs argued that S.B. 903 would discriminate towards out-of-state consumers by stopping them from accessing Virginia hemp.
The U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in January 2025 that Virginia’s regulation didn’t discriminate towards out-of-state pursuits as a result of it utilized to in-state and out-of-state consumers alike.
“The court docket additional held that the regulation doesn’t unjustifiably burden interstate commerce, and due to this fact it affirmed the district court docket’s dedication that the plaintiffs failed to ascertain a probability of success on their dormant Commerce Clause declare,” Kafka wrote on this week’s CRS report.
Federal Interpretations
Along with the authorized challenges to state legal guidelines, Kafka outlined how a pair of circuit rulings collide with the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) interpretation of the 2018 Farm Invoice’s definition of hemp, earlier than she offered 4 key concerns for Congress.
Particularly, the DEA decided in August 2020 that “all synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols,” comparable to delta-8 THC and THC-O, stay Schedule I federally managed substances, based on the company’s interim closing rule.
Roughly a 12 months later, Terrence L. Boos, Ph.D., chief of the Drug and Chemical Analysis Part of the DEA’s Diversion Management Division, authored an opinion letter to the Alabama Board of Pharmacy stating that the DEA believes delta-8 THC synthetically produced from non-cannabis supplies is a managed substance beneath federal regulation.
Though intoxicating delta-8 THC is of course occurring in hashish, it’s typically transformed in a lab from nonintoxicating CBD.
The U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Might 2022 colliding with the DEA’s interpretation, when a federal decide utilized the DEA’s argument to delta-8 THC in a trademark infringement and copyright dispute between AK Futures LLC and Boyd Road Distro LLC in Nevada. The decide dominated that delta-8 THC is authorized beneath the 2018 Farm Invoice.
“The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the plaintiff’s delta-8 THC merchandise match inside the statutory definition of hemp as a result of the plaintiff’s uncontradicted proof indicated that the merchandise have been ‘hemp-derived’ and contained ‘lower than 0.3% of delta-9 THC,’” Kafka wrote within the CRS report. “The court docket held that the 2018 Farm Invoice definition didn’t depend upon the way during which derivatives, extracts and cannabinoids have been produced.”
In February 2023, Boos additionally declared that THC-O was a Schedule I managed substance in a letter to worldwide hashish lawyer Rod Kight, a dedication Boos mentioned was made on the truth that THC-O doesn’t happen naturally within the hashish plant—it’s a semi-synthetic analogue derived from THC.
Nonetheless, the U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in September 2024 that THC-O meets the authorized definition of hemp beneath the 2018 Farm Invoice, once more veering from Boos’ interpretation. The appellate case stemmed from a North Carolina resident, Tonya Anderson, getting fired from her job with Diamondback Funding Group LLC for failing two drug checks. Anderson argued she consumed authorized hemp merchandise, however Diamondback referenced the DEA’s 2023 opinion letter and argued THC-O was not authorized.
“The Fourth Circuit rejected the defendant’s argument and as an alternative agreed with the Ninth Circuit in AK Futures that the 2018 Farm Invoice definition unambiguously establishes that ‘hemp’ consists of ‘all’ cannabinoids, and derivatives and extracts of hashish, as long as they don’t cross the 0.3% delta-9 THC threshold,” Kafka wrote. “In response to the court docket, whether or not a substance is taken into account hemp doesn’t depend upon the way it was manufactured however relatively whether or not it comes from hashish.
“The court docket additionally famous that, in gentle of the U.S. Supreme Court docket’s determination in Loper Vibrant v. Raimondo overturning the Chevron doctrine, the court docket wouldn’t have to defer to DEA’s interpretation even when the court docket had decided that the statutory definition was ambiguous [in the 2018 Farm Bill].”
The court docket decided that the definition of hemp was unambiguous.
Issues for Congress
In gentle of the federal interpretations and authorized challenges to state legal guidelines resulting in uncertainty and disagreement over the 2018 Farm Invoice’s definition of hemp, Kafka provided 4 concerns for Congress shifting ahead.
1.) Ought to Congress revise its definition of hemp and make clear which cannabinoid merchandise are excluded from the definition of marijuana beneath the Managed Substances Act (CSA)?
In July, Kentucky U.S. Sens. Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell, each Republicans, squared off on this query, disagreeing over a path ahead for consumable hemp merchandise.
Particularly, McConnell needed to connect language to an agricultural spending invoice that might have made hemp-derived merchandise containing artificial compounds and/or quantifiable quantities of THC or THCA—or different cannabinoids which have comparable results on people or animals—unlawful. However Paul prevailed in eradicating that attachment.
Comparable proposals have been provided final Congress as lawmakers tried—however finally delayed—to go a farm invoice reauthorization bundle that included an modification to redefine hemp.
“Such an modification would take into account all THC for the needs of legally figuring out what’s hemp and what’s marijuana,” Kafka wrote. “This variation would convey sure THC merchandise again beneath the CSA and DEA regulation which might be at the moment thought-about to be hemp or are in an unsure space of regulation.”
2.) Ought to Congress take into account different amendments to the definition of hemp to undertake the DEA’s interpretation that “synthetically derived” THC stays a Schedule I managed substance?
“Utilizing the time period ‘synthetically derived’ could elevate new questions as to what Congress means by artificial, until it have been clearly outlined,” Kafka wrote. “How it will be outlined would have an effect on which merchandise could be regulated by the CSA. Congress may additionally permit company and judicial interpretations to play out with out congressional intervention.”
3.) Ought to Congress take into account amending the categorical preemption provision to make clear which state legal guidelines are preempted?
This query comes as authorized challenges to New Jersey regulation and Wyoming regulation associated to restrictions for sure THC merchandise stay pending within the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Tenth circuits, Kafka identified.
“To the extent Congress seeks to permit states to ban sure hemp merchandise solely, Congress may make clear that states could regulate the possession, use or sale of hemp extra stringently than the farm invoice does; at the moment, the financial savings clause provision refers solely to the manufacturing of hemp,” she wrote. “To the extent Congress would like to restrict the states’ energy to ban these substances, Congress may make clear the legal guidelines it seeks to preempt.”
4.) Ought to Congress take into account marijuana’s standing beneath the CSA, which might have an effect on how cannabinoid merchandise that aren’t deemed to be hemp could be regulated?
Each Congress and the chief department, via the Division of Justice/DEA, have the authority to schedule, reschedule or deschedule substances beneath the CSA.
“DEA is at the moment contemplating whether or not to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III through formal rulemaking,” Kafka wrote. “Laws was launched within the 118th Congress that might have eliminated marijuana from regulation beneath the CSA.”
Hashish Regulation Assets in Poland
Discover important authorized pages about hashish cultivation, gross sales, and medical product rules in Poland. These assets will information you thru permissions, certifications, and compliance necessities.
-
Polish News Registration and Interests of Cannabis Businesses
-
Permissions for Cannabis Sales in Poland
-
Authorization for Importing or Manufacturing Medical Products
-
Permission for Manufacturing or Importing Medical Products
-
Certificate of Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)
-
Registration of Medical Products in Poland