But that’s not the end of the story.
A federal judge denied an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order sought by hemp businesses and consumers, allowing the Texas ban on THC products to continue until the case is resolved.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown of Galveston declined to lift the ban Sunday, saying the two hemp retailers and a distributor who filed the lawsuit hadn’t sufficiently demonstrated irreparable harm from the ban on interstate commerce. The request for preliminary injunction, which allows for fuller briefing and an evidentiary hearing, remains pending before the court.
“A temporary restraining order is emergency relief, held to one of the toughest standards in federal law,” Andrea Steel, lead counsel for the hemp industry in this case, said in a news release. “Being denied one at this stage does not decide our case. We expected a hard fight, and we remain confident in the law.”
Steel said the state told the judge that the businesses face no concrete, imminent threat of enforcement, which she believes raises the question of why the ban was implemented if law enforcement doesn’t plan to uphold the new restrictions.
[…]
Steel said Texas sits at the crossroads of several major national freight routes, and she believes they can prove the reinstated definitions are hurting not only Texas hemp but also hemp shipments that pass through to other states.
“Conflicting public descriptions of which hemp products may lawfully pass through Texas and which could expose someone to felony liability underscore the real-world uncertainty facing businesses and consumers,” Steel said.
Cannabis experts say if the ban is not removed, more than half of the THC products in stores might be removed from shelves.
“It’s a pretty big blow, and it’s recriminalizing a lot of cannabis products that have been completely legal and allowable in the state for many years, so we’re taking steps backwards toward prohibition,” Sarah Todd, media representative at Texas Cannabis Policy Center, previously told the Tribune.
See here for the background. We don’t know yet when the next hearing will be, for the temporary injunction, but one hopes it will be soon. I will of course keep an eye on it.
Re: “A temporary restraining order is emergency relief, held to one of the toughest standards in federal law, Andrea Steel, lead counsel for the hemp industry in this case, said in a news release.”
Toughest standards?
Hard to belief that an attorney would say such utter nonsense. Perhaps she was being mis-quoted.
A temporary restraining order [not to be confused with a temporary or preliminary INJUNCTION] is a stop-gap measure and can even be granted without a hearing if certain requirements are met. It expires automatically in 14 days. Its typical purpose is to preserve the status quo (status quo ante, really, though the ante is often dropped).
A TRO (if granted) often effects an immediate “freeze” of some actions sought to be enjoined, such as enforcement (or a scheduled sale or foreclosure). A denial is not on the merits of any implicated legal questions. The “freeze” gives parties time to prepare for an evidentiary hearing where the parties present their positions and the matter in dispute can be sorted out by the judge.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65
In federal courts, a temporary injunction is called “preliminary.”
In state courts, it’s actually called temporary injunction. Tex. R. Civ. P. 681 et. seq.
For TRO’s the terminology is the same.
As a recreational (legal in TX) edible eater, I have no problem with the ban as it, for the most part, outlaws all the shady, chemically-enhanced products on the market being sold in vape shops and in some cases, gas stations.
Manufacture and distribute your product(s) in compliance with Federal and State law and all is good. The loss of a Delta 8 product on the shelves is no biggie – plenty of Delta 9 products to replace it.