The Trump Administration is asking for a Federal Court to dismiss the lawsuit filed by a Washington, D.C. Hemp business against the federal government regarding a budget limitation imposed by Congress that prohibits local officials establishing and regulating retail marijuana markets.
The Justice Department filed a motion on Monday, about three months after Capitol Hemp brought the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of District of Columbia. This was based primarily on procedural issues.
A cannabis company wants a judge to declare that the budget rider of Congress does not prevent D.C. from adopting hemp legislation. DOJ claimed the cannabis company did not have standing to file the suit, saying that it was a “circular attack” on federal law.
The motion signed by U.S. attorney Jeanine Pirro states: “Plaintiff claims that federal appropriations laws are ambiguous, and therefore require interpretation by the Court. This ambiguity is, they claim, the cause of two damages, including a civil suit pending against them and confusion among the district.” The motion states that “neither of these injuries is enough to prove standing.” These damages cannot reasonably be attributed either to the Appropriations Act of the United States or its actions.
It is the Harris Rider, an old ban that has prevented Washington, D.C. for many years from creating a regulated system of adult-use marijuana sale. This lawsuit was named in honor of Rep. Andy Harris(R-MD) who was responsible for the original ban from 2014. It was renewed last year after earlier efforts to remove the longtime provision. It was retained as part of the base for a future appropriations bill.
Capitol Hemp asked the court to declare the language of the Harris rider “unconstitutionally vague” because it employs the term “tetrahydrocannabinols derivative,” which the company asserts is “lacking any established statutory definition or limiting principle.”
But the administration is pushing back, advising the court that “the Appropriations Act is neither the cause of action nor is it used as a basis for the suit against Plaintiff, and any declaration by this Court would not compel the District—a third party not before the Court—to enact Plaintiff’s preferred legislation.”
Back in June, the hemp business further said that the federal appropriations restriction’s reference to “any Schedule I substance…or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative” is “ambiguous and unworkable” when read in conjunction with D.C.’s Controlled Substances Act.
According to the complaint, this situation “creates a ambiguous standard and is unworkable, which prevents the district from determining what substances it can lawfully regulate”.
Capitol Hemp’s lawsuit argued that if federal restrictions are interpreted as including all THC it could “be construed in a way to prevent the District of Columbia from being able to regulate or clarify the status for lawful hemp-derived cannabis cannabinoids, such as delta-8 THC.”
DOJ again rejected the allegations.
“Beyond the fatal issues with standing, Plaintiff also fails to identify any statutory or common law cause of action to bring this suit, simply claiming that the suit is brought pursuant to ‘Declaratory Judgment Act,'” the motion continues. The Declaratory Judgement Act is a remedy and not an action. While plaintiffs can seek declaratory judgements, in this case, they would be advisory opinions because the dispute between the parties is not a live one.
The department didn’t address in detail the fundamental legal concerns about the D.C. prohibition, which prevents them from using tax dollars collected locally to create a system for controlled marijuana sales.
The lawsuit, however, is coming as federal and state legislators increasingly work to crackdown on markets for intoxicating products made from hemp, which sometimes contains as much psychoactive THC than state-regulated marijuana. The situation—which many have called a loophole resulting from the 2018 Farm Bill’s legalization of hemp nationwide—has raised broad public health concerns, in large part because the products are often untested and easily available to minors.
Rand Paul, R-KY warned on Wednesday that cannabis policy has “swung heavily to the prohibitionist side”, amid ongoing discussions over hemp products with high levels of intoxication. In addition, Paul is concerned that, should things not go according to plan, the hemp product market may be decimated within the next 2 weeks.
Paul has also filed a separate bill which would reverse the ban on hemp, and triple the amount of THC the plant can legally contain. This is in addition to addressing other concerns that industry members have expressed regarding federal regulations.
He introduced legislation in June entitled the Hemp Economic Mobilization Plan Act. It mirrors versions he’s sponsored over the last several sessions.
Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), who championed the hemp THC ban in his chamber’s version of the agriculture spending legislation, told MEDCAN24 that he wasn’t concerned about any potential opposition to the hemp ban in the Senate—and he also disputed reports about the scope of what his legislation would do to the industry.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a report in June stating that the legislation would “effectively” prohibit hemp-derived cannabinoid products. It was originally said that this ban would prohibit the sale of CBD products as well. However, the CRS updated its report to eliminate that wording for unclear reasons.
The hemp language is largely consistent with appropriations and agriculture legislation that was introduced, but not ultimately enacted, under the last Congress.
Hemp industry participants rallied to oppose that proposal. A previous version of the bill was also included as part of the base measure from last year’s subcommittee. It’s virtually identical to a provision of the 2024 Farm Bill that was attached by a separate committee last May via an amendment from Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL), which was also not enacted into law.
A leading alcohol industry association, meanwhile, has called on Congress to dial back language in the House spending bill that would ban most consumable hemp products, instead proposing to maintain the legalization of naturally derived cannabinoids from the crop and only prohibit synthetic items.
Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA) President and CEO Francis Creighton said in a press release that “proponents and opponents alike have agreed that this language amounts to a ban.”
Separately, key GOP congressional lawmakers—including one member who supports marijuana legalization—don’t seem especially concerned about provisions in the bill despite concern from stakeholders that it would put much of the hemp industry in jeopardy by banning most consumable products derived from the plant.
—
MEDCAN24 tracks hundreds of marijuana, psychedelics, and drug policy legislation in state legislatures this year. Patreon members who pledge at least $25/month gain access to interactive maps, charts, and hearing schedules so that they do not miss anything.
Discover more about the marijuana bills tracker. Become a patron on Patreon for access.
—
Jonathan Miller, general counsel at the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, told congressional lawmakers in April that the market is “begging” for federal regulations around cannabis products.
Rep. James Comer asked sarcastically, “Would it take a gazillion home-based bureaucrats to regulate CBD and other cannabinoids?”
A report from Bloomberg Intelligence (BI) last year called cannabis a “significant threat” to the alcohol industry, citing survey data that suggests more people are using cannabis as a substitute for alcoholic beverages such a beer and wine.
Last November, meanwhile, a beer industry trade group put out a statement of guiding principles to address what it called “the proliferation of largely unregulated intoxicating hemp and cannabis products,” warning of risks to consumers and communities resulting from THC consumption.
Below, you can read DOJ’s response to the D.C. Hemp lawsuit.
MEDCAN24 would not be possible without the support of readers. Consider a Patreon subscription if our marijuana advocacy journalism is what you use to keep informed.
