COLUMBUS – An Ohio judge has temporarily halted enforcement of the state’s new ban on intoxicating hemp products, escalating a legal battle that could reshape the future of hemp-derived THC markets—not just in Ohio, but across the Midwest.

In a March 24 ruling, Sandusky County Common Pleas Court Judge Jeremiah Ray issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking enforcement of Senate Bill 56, a law signed by Mike DeWine that took effect just days earlier on March 20.

The decision stops Fremont police—and potentially other enforcement agencies—from cracking down on hemp-derived THC products while the case proceeds.

But beneath the surface, the ruling highlights a deeper conflict: a growing national push to restrict hemp-derived intoxicants, and a parallel effort by state-regulated cannabis industries to control that market.

A Fast-Moving Crackdown on Hemp

Ohio’s Senate Bill 56 didn’t emerge in a vacuum.

Since the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, hemp-derived cannabinoids like delta-8 THC have flooded the market. Because they are derived from legal hemp (containing less than 0.3% delta-9 THC), these products have existed in a regulatory gray area—often sold in gas stations, smoke shops, and online with minimal oversight.

That has triggered growing concern among lawmakers nationwide.

Ohio joined a wave of states—including Michigan, Kentucky, and Texas—that have moved to restrict or outright ban intoxicating hemp products, citing:

  • Lack of testing and safety standards
  • Youth access concerns
  • Competition with licensed cannabis markets

But critics argue these laws are less about safety—and more about economic protectionism.

Judge Calls Law “Discriminatory”

Judge Ray’s ruling zeroes in on that issue.

In granting the TRO, he wrote that S.B. 56 effectively gives exclusive rights to Ohio’s licensed marijuana dispensaries to sell products that are chemically similar to hemp-derived THC items—while banning those same products when sold by hemp companies.

That, he argued, likely violates the U.S. Constitution’s dormant Commerce Clause.

“The discriminatory effects are apparent,” Ray wrote, noting that out-of-state hemp products could trigger felony charges, while “materially similar” products sold by in-state cannabis operators remain legal.

The lawsuit was filed by Cycling Frog, a Seattle-based manufacturer of hemp-derived THC and CBD beverages and products.

The company claims Ohio’s law could wipe out roughly 20% of its business-to-business revenue in the state.

The DeWine Veto That Escalated the Fight

The legal battle intensified after Gov. DeWine used a line-item veto to remove a key provision from S.B. 56.

That provision would have allowed hemp-derived cannabinoid beverages to remain legal in Ohio through the end of 2026—giving the industry time to transition.

By eliminating that carve-out, DeWine accelerated the crackdown, effectively forcing hemp beverage companies out of the market almost immediately.

That move triggered a second lawsuit from Cycling Frog and others, arguing the state unfairly disrupted an existing legal industry.

Cannabis vs. Hemp: A Brewing Industry War

At the heart of the dispute is a widening divide between two industries:

1. Licensed Cannabis Operators

  • Heavily regulated
  • Pay high licensing fees and taxes
  • Restricted to in-state operations

2. Hemp-Derived THC Companies

  • Federally legal under the Farm Bill
  • Lower regulatory burden
  • Operate across state lines

Judge Ray’s ruling suggests Ohio may have crossed a legal line by tilting the playing field toward cannabis businesses.

He noted the law “immunizes” Ohio’s in-state marijuana industry from out-of-state competition—forcing consumers to buy from licensed dispensaries even when federally legal alternatives exist.

Potential Class Action Could Halt Law Statewide

The case could quickly expand.

Attorney Andrew Mayle, representing Cycling Frog, has filed a motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action. If granted, the TRO could effectively block enforcement of S.B. 56 across Ohio—not just in Sandusky County.

A hearing is scheduled for April 9, with the TRO currently set to remain in effect until April 28.

Meanwhile, Dave Yost has moved to intervene in the case, signaling the state is preparing to aggressively defend the law.

Why This Matters Beyond Ohio

This case is being closely watched far beyond state lines.

Across the U.S., regulators are grappling with how to handle intoxicating hemp products ahead of a potential federal crackdown expected later in 2026.

Ohio lawmakers explicitly tied S.B. 56 to that anticipated federal shift, attempting to align state law early. But the court’s intervention suggests states may face constitutional limits in how they regulate interstate hemp commerce.

Michigan Angle: A Warning Sign for Regional Markets

For Michigan, the implications are immediate.

Michigan has already moved to regulate delta-8 and similar cannabinoids under the state’s marijuana framework, requiring them to be sold through licensed dispensaries.

But Ohio’s more aggressive approach—and the legal pushback—raises key questions:

  • Could similar Commerce Clause challenges emerge in Michigan?
  • Will hemp companies shift operations into more permissive states?
  • Could regional inconsistencies create cross-border enforcement issues?

For businesses operating near the Ohio-Michigan border, the uncertainty is especially high.

What Comes Next

The April 9 hearing could determine whether Ohio’s hemp crackdown stalls—or accelerates.

If the court grants class-action status and extends the restraining order, the state’s attempt to eliminate intoxicating hemp products could be frozen for months.

If not, enforcement could resume quickly—reshaping the market overnight.

Either way, the case underscores a bigger reality:

The fight over hemp-derived THC is no longer about regulation alone—it’s about who controls the future of cannabis-adjacent markets in the U.S.