By Legal Challenge Over Vague Definitions
A federal judge in Missouri is being asked to decide whether the state’s new law banning intoxicating hemp products is clear enough to enforce. The law is scheduled to go into effect on November 12. Plaintiffs argue the legislation creates contradictory definitions for the same product.
The lawsuit was filed by the Missouri Hemp Trade Association and other plaintiffs. They contend that House Bill 2641 leaves businesses unsure what they can legally sell. The group says the state has created overlapping legal categories for hemp and marijuana.
Chuck Hatfield, attorney for the plaintiffs, stated that most judges would read the bill and ask, “What is going on here?” He added that the clients want a day in court to resolve the confusion. The case is currently before Judge M. Douglas Harpool of the U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri.
State Argues No Contradiction Exists
The state of Missouri has asked Judge Harpool to dismiss the lawsuit. State officials argue there is no contradiction because the law outlines which category controls.
In a motion to dismiss, the state stated that if a product meets the definition of a hemp-derived cannabinoid, it is treated as marijuana. The state described this distinction as being “that simple.” They argue the legislation includes provisions to guard against confusion in the market.
The state also characterized the lawsuit as part of a growing nationwide effort by the hemp industry. The motion cited other federal cases where challenges against similar state laws have failed. The state believes the industry is using a well-established playbook to overturn regulations.
Bill Details and Federal Context
House Bill 2641 was sponsored by Republican state Rep. Dave Hinman of O’Fallon. This limit mirrors a provision in a federal spending bill approved last year.
The dispute centers on how the state defines these terms relative to federal law.
Congress passed a federal ban on these products that is also set to go into effect on November 12. Missouri lawmakers intended to mirror that language with their spring legislation. The federal judge will now determine if the state’s version is enforceable or too contradictory.
