Texas’s appeal over contested consumable-hemp rules is officially set for oral argument on Tuesday, December 8, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. Central. The Fifteenth Court of Appeals issued its scheduling notice October 5 in Texas Department of State Health Services v. Texas Hemp Business Council, appeal No. 15-26-00099-CV.
The December hearing is not a ruling. The challenged DSHS rules remain in effect, and the trial court’s temporary injunction is not currently protecting the industry while the appeal proceeds.
When and where the court will hear the case
The official notice sets argument for 9:30 a.m. on December 8 in the Court of Criminal Appeals courtroom at the Supreme Court Building, 201 W. 14th Street, Room 106, in Austin. The panel is listed as Chief Justice Scott Brister and Justices Scott Field and April Farris, subject to change.
Each side will receive 20 minutes. The court also says it plans to broadcast oral arguments on the Fifteenth Court of Appeals’ YouTube channel, subject to further court orders. Anyone planning to attend or watch should check the official docket for changes.
What the appeal is about
The appeal concerns a May 1 temporary injunction issued by a Travis County district court in the Texas Hemp Business Council’s challenge to portions of the state’s 2026 consumable-hemp rules. The plaintiffs argue that the Texas Department of State Health Services and other officials exceeded authority granted by the Legislature, including through a total-delta-9 THC calculation that accounts for THCA, transport restrictions, licensing fees and penalty provisions. CannaWize previously explained why the June rehearing denial left the injunction out of effect.
The State disputes those claims. In its appellate briefing, it argues that the agencies adopted a permissible testing standard, acted within their authority on transport, fees and sanctions, substantially complied with state rulemaking requirements, and received an injunction broader than the law allows.
Those are the parties’ competing legal positions. The scheduling notice does not endorse either side.
What each side is asking the court to do
The State asks the Fifteenth Court of Appeals to reverse the temporary-injunction order and render judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims. The industry plaintiffs ask the court to uphold the injunction, put it back into effect and allow the underlying challenge to continue in the trial court. A separate planned constitutional challenge to DSHS rules follows a different path and is not the case set for December 8.
If the injunction is restored, enforcement would be blocked only to the extent specified by the court while the lawsuit continues. An appellate ruling could also affirm some parts of the trial court’s order and reverse others, so the practical effect will depend on the exact language of the opinion.
How the case reached oral argument
- April 7: THBC and other plaintiffs filed the underlying lawsuit in Travis County, Cause No. D-1-GN-26-002511.
- May 1: The trial court signed a temporary injunction covering challenged portions of the rules.
- June 5: The Fifteenth Court denied emergency relief and lifted its administrative stay, leaving the temporary injunction out of effect during the appeal.
- June 26: The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing on temporary appellate relief.
- September 17: The State filed its reply brief, completing the main round of appellate briefing.
- October 5: The court set the appeal for December 8 submission and oral argument.
What does not change before the hearing
Setting oral argument does not pause enforcement, restore the trial court’s injunction or decide whether the challenged rules are lawful. It also does not create a deadline for the court’s opinion. Texas hemp businesses should continue to treat the rules currently in effect as enforceable unless a court or the State issues a new controlling order or notice. Our Texas hemp rule guide separates this dispute from the State’s controlled-substance scheduling changes.
The hearing will let the three-justice panel question lawyers on the issues already briefed. A written decision will come later, but the court has not said when.