Sixth Circuit Narrows Ohio Hemp Injunction, Finds Likely Dormant Commerce Clause Problems

The Sixth Circuit issued an order on September 25 partly staying a preliminary injunction that had shielded a group of Ohio hemp companies from enforcement of Senate Bill 56, the 2025 law that narrowed Ohio's hemp definition so that certain higher-THC products now count as marijuana under state law. The panel agreed the plaintiffs are likely to win on two specific claims that Ohio's marijuana licensing system discriminates against interstate commerce, but it also found the district court's injunction swept far beyond what the identified constitutional problems justify.

What Ohio's Senate Bill 56 Did

In 2025, Ohio enacted Senate Bill 56, narrowing the state's definition of "hemp" so that certain higher-THC products that remain federally lawful hemp are now classified as marijuana under Ohio law. The plaintiffs are hemp cultivators, processors, manufacturers, distributors and sellers whose products were lawful under Ohio's prior hemp regime but were redefined as marijuana once the law took effect. Because Ohio generally allows marijuana cultivation, processing and sale only through its licensed cannabis market, the plaintiffs argued the new regime effectively locks out their out-of-state products unless they move parts of their operations into Ohio.

A federal district court agreed the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on a dormant Commerce Clause claim and entered a broad preliminary injunction barring any enforcement action against the plaintiffs, or against anyone possessing, selling, distributing or consuming their products, tied to Senate Bill 56's reclassification. Ohio appealed and asked the Sixth Circuit to stay that injunction while the appeal proceeds.

The Two Problems the Panel Identified

The panel rejected Ohio's argument that the federal Farm Bill's hemp-preemption savings clause, 7 U.S.C. Section 1639p(a)(3)(A), authorizes this kind of discrimination the way a broader provision did for California milk rules in Hillside Dairy Inc. v. Lyons. The Farm Bill language only says the relevant "subsection" doesn't preempt certain state hemp-production laws — narrower wording than the "or any other provision of law" language that mattered in Hillside Dairy. The court also found Ohio's geographic restrictions don't clearly regulate hemp "production" in the first place, since they concern where downstream licensing and processing happen rather than production standards themselves.

Why the Injunction Got Narrowed Anyway

Despite finding likely constitutional problems, the panel ruled the district court's injunction was substantially overbroad in two ways. First, the original order exempted the plaintiffs from any enforcement tied to the marijuana reclassification — not just the discriminatory geographic rules, but also neutral licensing, testing, age, packaging, labeling and warning requirements that would otherwise apply. The panel held the dormant Commerce Clause requires Ohio to regulate in-state and out-of-state commerce evenhandedly; it doesn't exempt plaintiffs from generally applicable rules that have nothing to do with geography.

Second, the district court had extended the injunction to "identified non-parties" — anyone possessing, selling, distributing or consuming the plaintiffs' products. Citing the Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., the panel held that no class had been certified and the complete-relief principle does not allow courts to grant direct relief to non-parties. That single procedural point removed protection for every distributor and retailer downstream of the named plaintiffs, even though the underlying constitutional finding didn't change.

What Actually Remains in Effect

The panel's bottom line was narrow and specific. Ohio may not condition a named plaintiff's eligibility for, or participation in, the Ohio market — including licensing, sourcing, processing, selling or transferring products — on cultivation or processing occurring inside Ohio. Beyond that limit, the court did not prescribe exactly how Ohio must structure the plaintiffs' market participation. Everything else in the original injunction, including its protection for non-party distributors and retailers, is stayed pending the full appeal. The panel also noted the record showed Ohio had paused new licensing while it builds out a new application system, which it treated as a temporary administrative feature rather than a permanent barrier to entry.

The Open Question for Marijuana Cases

The order's most consequential omission may be what it didn't decide: whether federal marijuana prohibition itself prevents a dormant Commerce Clause challenge to state marijuana restrictions in the first place. The panel didn't have to reach that question here because the plaintiffs' products are still lawful hemp under federal law, not marijuana. Federal circuits are currently split on it. The First and Second Circuits have applied dormant Commerce Clause doctrine in marijuana licensing cases despite federal prohibition, while the Ninth Circuit rejected that approach in a ruling earlier this year.

That split matters beyond Ohio. The federal hemp definition is scheduled to narrow in December under the delayed farm-bill deadline CannaWize has covered previously. Unless Congress changes the law, products that fall outside the new, narrower federal hemp definition will lose federal hemp status. If that happens to the Titan Logistics plaintiffs' products, this same litigation could eventually confront the federal-illegality question the panel avoided at the stay stage — the question of whether a marijuana business, as opposed to a hemp business, can even invoke the dormant Commerce Clause. How the Sixth Circuit or the Supreme Court eventually resolves that circuit split would carry far more weight for interstate marijuana commerce than this order does on its own.

What This Doesn't Establish

It's worth being precise about what a stay order at this stage does and doesn't do. It is not a final ruling on the merits of the underlying dormant Commerce Clause claim; the full appeal remains pending. It applies only to the named Titan Logistics plaintiffs, not to distributors, retailers or any other business carrying their products. And it says nothing about whether the same reasoning would extend to a state's marijuana program more broadly, since the products here are still classified as hemp under federal law. Readers should treat this as a developing case, not a settled precedent for interstate marijuana commerce.