The Department of Justice has filed a motion to dismiss a federal lawsuit challenging congressional restrictions on Washington D.C.’s ability to regulate cannabis sales, in the latest development in a legal battle over local marijuana policy autonomy.
Capitol Hemp, Washington D.C.’s oldest hemp shop, filed the lawsuit in June 2025 against the federal government, seeking to overturn the longstanding Harris Amendment that prevents the district from establishing a regulated adult-use cannabis market. The Trump administration’s Justice Department responded on September 15, 2025, with a motion requesting dismissal of the case on procedural grounds.
Harris Amendment
The lawsuit centers around the so-called Harris Amendment, a congressional budget rider authored by Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) that has blocked Washington D.C. from spending local tax dollars on cannabis legalization efforts for over a decade.
This federal restriction has created a complex legal landscape where adult-use cannabis possession is legal in the district, but sales are limited to medical marijuana dispensaries.
The amendment specifically prohibits the district from using any funds “to enact any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative.”
Capitol Hemp’s lawsuit argues that this language is “unconstitutionally vague,” particularly the phrase “tetrahydrocannabinols derivative,” which the company claims lacks any established statutory definition or limiting principle.
The hemp business contends this ambiguity prevents D.C. officials from determining which substances they may lawfully regulate, creating confusion around hemp-derived cannabinoids like delta-8 THC.
DOJ’s Response and Legal Arguments
The Justice Department, filed the motion to dismiss, arguing that Capitol Hemp lacks standing to pursue the litigation. The DOJ’s filing states that the company “fails to anchor the suit with a cognizable cause of action and seeks improper advisory opinions.”
The Justice Department specifically challenged Capitol Hemp’s assertion that federal appropriations law requires court interpretation due to ambiguity.
According to the motion, the company claims this ambiguity causes two injuries: a pending civil action against them and confusion on the part of the District. However, the DOJ argues that “neither of these alleged harms is sufficient to establish standing in this suit.”
The motion further contends that any declaration by the federal court would not compel D.C. to enact Capitol Hemp’s preferred legislation, as the district is a third party not before the court.
The Justice Department also noted that Capitol Hemp failed to identify any statutory or common law cause of action, simply claiming the suit was brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act, which provides a remedy rather than a cause of action.
The Larger Hemp Industry Context
This lawsuit emerges amid growing federal and state scrutiny of intoxicating hemp products, which can sometimes contain as much psychoactive THC as state-regulated marijuana products.
The 2018 Farm Bill’s legalization of hemp nationwide created what many consider a regulatory loophole, allowing hemp-derived THC products to enter markets with minimal oversight.
The situation has raised public health concerns, particularly because these products are often untested and lawmakers argue are easily accessible to minors. Federal lawmakers are increasingly moving to address this regulatory gap, with some proposing stricter controls on hemp-derived cannabinoid products.
Capitol Hemp has been challenging Washington D.C.’s crackdown on hemp-derived THC for more than a year, filing a second lawsuit against the district itself over allegedly vague local hemp laws. The company argues that the federal-local conflict restricts D.C.’s ability to adequately regulate hemp-derived THC products.
Court Proceedings and Next Steps
The case has been assigned to Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Following the DOJ’s motion to dismiss, the court issued a minute order on September 17, 2025, providing Capitol Hemp with an opportunity to respond.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), Capitol Hemp has until October 6, 2025, to amend their complaint as a matter of course. After that date, any amendments would require either the defendants’ written consent or court approval. The court ordered Capitol Hemp to file a notice by October 1, 2025, stating whether they intend to amend their complaint in light of the motion to dismiss.
The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for Washington D.C.’s cannabis policy and the relationship between federal restrictions and local autonomy.
If Capitol Hemp’s challenge succeeds, it could potentially clear the way for D.C. to establish a regulated adult-use cannabis market, similar to those operating in numerous states.
However, the Justice Department’s procedural challenges raise questions about whether the case will reach the merits of Capitol Hemp’s constitutional arguments. The DOJ’s arguments about who can even bring this lawsuit could be a major problem, potentially ending the lawsuit before any substantive ruling on the Harris Amendment’s validity.
The case also reflects ongoing tensions between federal cannabis prohibition and state and local efforts to regulate cannabis markets. While numerous states have legalized adult-use cannabis, D.C. remains in a unique position due to congressional oversight of the district’s budget and legislation.
Looking Ahead
As Congress keeps working on hemp rules and overall cannabis policy, this lawsuit is one part of the ongoing legal discussions about who controls cannabis policy. The hemp industry is still looking for clearer federal rules, and some people involved want big changes instead of small restrictions.
The case also highlights the complex interplay between federal appropriations riders and local governance, particularly in D.C., where congressional oversight creates unique constitutional questions about local autonomy and democratic representation.
Capitol Hemp’s response to the motion to dismiss will likely determine whether this challenge to federal cannabis restrictions moves forward or becomes another example of the procedural hurdles facing cannabis policy litigation in federal court.
