A Federal Judge Just Blocked Ohio's Hemp Restrictions. North Carolina Is Weighing the Same 0.4mg Standard

Something happened in an Ohio courtroom last week that North Carolina lawmakers should read before they pick hemp back up. A federal judge blocked the state from enforcing key parts of its hemp law against a group of hemp companies, finding that the way Ohio built the rule likely violates the U.S. Constitution.

One piece of that law should sound familiar to anyone following House Bill 328: a 0.4 milligram cap on total THC per container. North Carolina's bill carries the same standard.

The Ohio ruling has no legal force here, and it settles nothing permanently. But the reasoning behind it is worth reading closely, because it shows how a hemp restriction can collapse under its own construction, and because it hands the industry something it has not had before now. A court saying out loud what hemp businesses have been arguing for months.

What the Ohio Court Ruled on Senate Bill 56

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Helmick issued a preliminary injunction in a case brought by Delta Beverages along with roughly a dozen other hemp companies, several of them regional breweries. The suit targets Ohio Senate Bill 56, which took effect in the spring and rewrote what counts as hemp under state law.

The Two Thresholds Ohio Put Into Law

Senate Bill 56 did not do one thing. It did two, and both matter.

1. It narrowed the plant-level definition of hemp to 0.3 percent total THC, counting THCA and related compounds that earlier rules left out.

2. It added a separate ceiling on finished goods. Under Ohio Revised Code 928.01, any final hemp-derived product carrying more than 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container falls outside the hemp definition entirely.

Under state law, anything above that container limit is treated as marijuana. In Ohio, marijuana is sold only through dispensaries licensed by the Division of Cannabis Control, which requires a physical presence in the state. 

For context on how tight that ceiling is, many hemp beverages and edibles are marketed at five or ten milligrams of THC per serving. Products in that range sit well above a 0.4 milligram per container limit.

Why the Judge Found a Constitutional Problem

The threshold on its own was not what drew the constitutional objection. It was the threshold combined with a licensing channel that out-of-state companies could not enter. As Helmick described it in an earlier order in the same case, Ohio took products that were federally lawful hemp under the federal definition then in effect, reclassified them under state law, and then barred any company from selling them without a footprint inside Ohio.

Courts call this a dormant Commerce Clause issue. The principle is old and fairly plain. A state cannot write rules that quietly advantage its own businesses over competitors from elsewhere. Ohio did not shut these products off for everyone equally. It routed them into a system only in-state operators could access, and that is what put the law in legal jeopardy.

How Ohio's Law Compares to North Carolina's HB 328

What the Two Measures Have in Common

The conference version of HB 328 now awaiting House action carries the same 0.4 milligram per container standard, aligning North Carolina with the federal total-THC definition. Applied as written, it would clear the overwhelming majority of hemp products off shelves across the state.

The measure has cleared the Senate, but the conference version has not yet received House approval. It was sent back to the House Rules, Calendar, and Operations Committee, where it has stayed since. Coverage of the delay has pointed to the economic stakes as a central factor, with industry estimates putting the sector at more than 16,000 jobs and billions in annual revenue.

Where the Two States Part Ways

The laws are not identical, and the difference is legally significant. Ohio's exposure came from the in-state licensing requirement, not from a numerical threshold on its own. A state that writes a genuinely neutral rule, applied the same way to every business regardless of where it sits, stands on much firmer ground.

So the Ohio ruling does not mean HB 328 would automatically fall in court. What it does mean is that restrictions built this way attract lawsuits, and lawsuits are costly in ways that go well beyond legal fees.

What Litigation Has Cost Ohio's Hemp Businesses

Ohio offers a preview of what a contested hemp restriction looks like from the inside. Since the law took effect, Ohio has seen temporary restraining orders, federal preliminary injunctions covering different groups of plaintiffs, and continued efforts by the state to pause or challenge those rulings. 

What that means for businesses on the ground:

• The injunction protects the named plaintiffs and certain people or organizations dealing with their products, not Ohio's hemp industry as a whole. 

• Retailers who were not part of the litigation remain exposed to enforcement.

• Few operators can say with confidence which products are legal in a given week.

• The state continues to contest the orders, so today's answer may not hold.

One brewery owner captured the position bluntly earlier this summer, saying that resuming sales would mean risking jail as an illegal marijuana distributor. That is what a contested restriction produces. It is not regulation in any useful sense. It is uncertain with a case number attached.

What North Carolina's Hemp Economy Stands to Lose

The scale here is not abstract. According to a Whitney Economics analysis, North Carolina's hemp sector accounts for:

• More than 16,000 jobs across farming, processing, distribution, testing, and retail

• An estimated $3.2 billion in annual industry revenue

• Roughly $702.5 million paid out in wages each year

• About $87.8 million in annual state sales tax revenue

• Around 2,197 storefronts operating across the state

Behind each of those figures are farms that shifted acreage away from tobacco, family shops without corporate reserves to fall back on, and workers whose paychecks depend on products a 0.4 milligram rule would remove.

What Hemp Businesses Are Asking For Instead

The industry's position has been consistent, and it is not a request to be left alone. It is a request for rules that govern behavior rather than define the product out of existence. In practice that means four things:

1. Mandatory third-party lab testing, with batch-level verification so buyers know what is actually in a product

2. A hard age limit of 21, enforced at the point of sale with the same seriousness applied to alcohol

3. Clear and accurate labeling covering cannabinoid content, serving size, and ingredients

4. Licensing for manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, so regulators can identify who is operating and remove those who break the rules

These are the kinds of requirements courts generally treat differently from rules that discriminate against interstate commerce, because they regulate how a business operates rather than which businesses are allowed to exist. A container cap does neither job well. It cannot tell the difference between an operator testing every batch and one selling mislabeled gummies from a cooler, and it removes both from the legal market at once.

Four Limits on What the Ohio Ruling Actually Means

It would be easy to read too much into a favorable ruling, so it is worth being precise about the boundaries:

1. The injunction is preliminary, not a final judgment. The case is still moving, and the state continues to challenge the orders.

2. Its protection runs to the companies that brought the suit rather than to Ohio's hemp industry generally. Businesses outside the case remain subject to the law.

3. The reasoning rests on these products being federally lawful hemp. If the federal definition narrows, that foundation shifts. Legal analysts reviewing the case have made this point explicitly, noting the discrimination argument works precisely because current federal law still protects the products in question.

4. North Carolina sits in a different appeals circuit than Ohio. The Fourth Circuit, which covers this state, upheld Virginia's per-package THC limit last year and rejected a similar Commerce Clause challenge, one brought in part by a North Carolina company. The judge in the Ohio case expressly distinguished that Virginia decision. What made Ohio's law vulnerable was routing reclassified products into a dispensary system only in-state operators could join. HB 328 creates no such channel, so the Ohio reasoning does not transfer cleanly. 

This is a signal, not a shield. The Ohio order is useful as evidence that near-zero caps invite litigation and produce patchwork markets, which is a real cost lawmakers should weigh. It is not a prediction that a court here would strike HB 328 down. That argument has to be won in the legislature, not the courthouse. 

Where HB 328 Goes When Lawmakers Return

HB 328 has not moved since it went back to committee, and the House working group that was promised has not been publicly named. Meanwhile, the governor's cannabis advisory council is meeting through the fall and owes a final report by the end of the year. That report will shape whatever legislation gets introduced in the next long session.

Which means the time to get this right has not run out yet.

Ohio moved quickly and built a rule that a federal judge has now preliminarily blocked. The result has been months of litigation, businesses operating blind, and a state no closer to a functioning market than it was before. North Carolina has watched that unfold from across the border. There is no reason to run the same experiment twice.