A judge granted an emergency motion Thursday to temporarily halt parts of a new Ohio law that introduces significant changes to recreational marijuana.
Judge Jeffrey Brown of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas heard the emergency request Thursday afternoon in a case challenging Senate Bill 56. He ruled against the state, pausing enforcement of the law’s broad cannabis changes until a preliminary injunction hearing, which is expected in about two weeks.
The decision applies only to the plaintiffs named in the lawsuit: Happy Harvest and Get Wright Lounge. Happy Harvest operates several locations across Ohio, while Get Wright Lounge runs a single location in Columbus.
S.B. 56, which took effect in March, created new penalties for certain cannabis use and prohibited the sale of intoxicating hemp products such as THC-infused drinks. See previous coverage of S.B. 56 in the video player above.
The law quickly faced legal challenges, including a joint lawsuit filed by Happy Harvest and Get Wright Lounge against the state in Franklin County. This week, state Rep. Jennifer Gross (R-West Chester) joined the case, arguing that the bill should be halted.
“This isn’t really about hemp. It’s about whether the Ohio Constitution still means what it says. When a conference committee can rewrite a bill overnight, strip out the provisions that earned it a majority, and then ram it through without three readings or proper committee review, every Ohioan loses — no matter which side of the issue they’re on. I took an oath to the Constitution, and I intend to keep it.”
On March 24, a Sandusky County judge issued a similar temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of S.B. 56, citing conflicts between the law and federal regulations. Under S.B. 56, intoxicating hemp products are classified as cannabis and may only be sold at licensed dispensaries. Federal law, however, classifies intoxicating hemp products as hemp and does not subject them to cannabis-related restrictions.
Brown heard arguments based on the same federal law that influenced the Sandusky ruling. He also weighed claims that the state unfairly delayed a citizen challenge to the bill, that S.B. 56 suddenly criminalized an entire business sector leaving entrepreneurs with illegal inventory, and that the measure conflicts with several state laws.
Scott Pullins, an attorney representing intoxicating hemp retailers in the lawsuit, called the ruling a significant step forward for his clients. He noted that numerous attorneys represented the state at the hearing and said he was pleased they still secured the order.
“We didn’t have a whole cadre of of lobbyists and campaign funds to throw at legislators like big marijuana does so yeah I mean we’re the little guys not only taking on big marijuana but big government that pretty much did what big marihuana wanted,” Pullins said.
Unlike the Sandusky decision, Brown’s temporary restraining order extends statewide for the businesses named as plaintiffs.
Leave a Reply