Key Takeaways
- Ohio’s Senate Bill 56 creates a split cannabinoid market, restricting federally legal intoxicating hemp to companies operating solely within the state.
- Judge Helmick issued a preliminary injunction, blocking enforcement of SB 56 against certain plaintiffs, signaling a likelihood of success on dormant Commerce Clause claims.
- The market confusion arises from the distinction of who can sell intoxicating hemp products based on the federal court order.
- Both in-state and out-of-state businesses face uncertainty, as only specific companies currently have federal court protection under the injunction.
- The implications extend beyond Ohio, influencing how other states might regulate their hemp markets against the dormant Commerce Clause.
Ohio has been building one of the most unusual cannabinoid markets in the country since Senate Bill 56 took effect on March 20th earlier this year. Products that are federally legal hemp can now be sold by certain companies and not others, depending entirely on whether those companies are named in a federal court order. That is not a normal regulatory outcome. It is a legally split market, and it matters a great deal to anyone operating in, or supplying into, the Ohio hemp space.
What Is Ohio Senate Bill 56, and Why Did Hemp Companies Sue?
Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed Senate Bill 56 into law on December 19, 2025. The legislation, which we covered at the time of signing, took effect March 20, 2026, and it fundamentally rewired how hemp-derived products are treated under state law.
The core problem, from an interstate commerce standpoint, is how SB 56 interacts with Ohio’s existing marijuana licensing framework. Ohio law now redefines any intoxicating hemp-derived product containing more than 0.3% total THC concentration as marijuana. Retailers can only legally sell marijuana in Ohio through state-licensed dispensaries. And those dispensaries, per Ohio Administrative Code § 3796:6-3-01(C), cannot obtain marijuana from, or transfer marijuana to, any location outside the state of Ohio.
The practical result: Ohio law now restricts the commercial market for federally legal intoxicating hemp products exclusively to companies that source, manufacture, and distribute entirely within Ohio. Ohio’s rules effectively lock out out-of-state businesses and Ohio companies that source hemp from other states.
As Judge Helmick wrote in his recent opinion, “Ohio law clearly restricts the commercial market for federally legal intoxicating hemp products to only those companies that source, manufacture, and distribute their products solely within Ohio.” That is exactly the kind of economic protectionism the dormant Commerce Clause exists to prevent.
What Did Judge Jeffrey Helmick Actually Rule?
Judge Helmick granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining Ohio, its cannabis regulators, the Ohio State Highway Patrol, and 96 county and municipal prosecutor’s offices from taking any criminal, civil, administrative, or regulatory enforcement action against the named plaintiffs, or against anyone possessing, selling, distributing, or consuming their products, where that action depends on SB 56’s amended definition of hemp, provided the product in question qualifies as hemp under federal law.
The court found that the plaintiffs demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their dormant Commerce Clause claims. Helmick also found that the remaining factors for injunctive relief, including irreparable harm, balance of harms, and public interest, all favor the plaintiffs. On the question of irreparable harm, the court cited Sixth Circuit precedent holding that a strong likelihood of constitutional success “mandates” a finding of irreparable harm.
The State of Ohio had argued, among other things, that Congress actively regulating hemp under the 2018 Farm Bill eliminates any dormant Commerce Clause concern. The court rejected that argument, citing the Supreme Court’s holding in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023) that state laws offend the Commerce Clause when they build up domestic commerce through burdens on the business of other states, regardless of whether Congress has spoken.
Why a Preliminary Injunction Is Materially Stronger Than a TRO
The earlier temporary restraining order in this case was emergency relief, issued August 7, 2026, and subsequently extended through September 4. A TRO can be granted on short notice without full briefing and expires quickly. It is a placeholder, not a finding.
A preliminary injunction is different. To obtain one, the moving party must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits through briefing that the opposing side can fully contest. The State of Ohio filed a brief in opposition. The Akron City Prosecutor filed a separate brief in opposition. Plaintiffs replied. Judge Helmick reviewed the full record, weighed the state’s arguments including that the lawsuit was too broad and filed too late, and rejected them both. The injunction was still granted.
The preliminary injunction remains operative through the entire litigation unless a higher court stays or reverses it. Ohio’s Attorney General filed a motion to stay the earlier Titan Logistics order; courts have not granted that relief. The preliminary injunction in Delta Beverages is the stronger, more durable form of protection that can hold through trial.
Who Does the Preliminary Injunction Actually Protect?
This is the most important question for anyone in the Ohio hemp market, and the answer is narrow.
“Who Is Actually Protected?”
The September 4 preliminary injunction covers only the named plaintiffs in Delta Beverages Inc. et al. v. Canepa et al. (Case No. 3:26-cv-01793, N.D. Ohio). Those companies are:
Delta Beverages, Inc. / Crescent Distributions NC, LLC (d/b/a Crescent Canna) / Opta Nevada Group LLC (d/b/a Cheech and Chong’s Beverages) / Torch Drinks LLC / Fifty West Brewing Company LLC / Athens Beverage LLC / The Great Lakes Brewing Company / Green Room Brewing LLC (d/b/a Seventh Son Brewing) / Florageist, LLC (d/b/a Rhinegeist) / SS Beverages 1, Inc. (d/b/a Uncle Arnie’s) / Mile High Cure Corp. / Sky Marketing Corp. (d/b/a Hometown Hero) / Wellness of Willoughby, LLC (d/b/a Thee Hemp Co.) / Lifted Liquids, Inc.
The order also protects any person or organization possessing, selling, distributing, or consuming those specific companies’ products, where the enforcement action depends on SB 56’s amended hemp definition and the product qualifies as hemp under federal law.
SB 56 has not been struck down. It remains fully in effect for every company not named in this order. Ohio hemp retailers not in this lawsuit cannot restock intoxicating hemp products based on this ruling. Ohio operators outside the case face the same enforcement risk they faced before September 4.
A separate case, Titan Logistics Group LLC et al. v. Tischler, resulted in a preliminary injunction issued July 13, 2026, protecting ten different plaintiff companies. That order covers Titan Logistics Group LLC, Hopportunity Holding Company LLC, Saucy Seltzer LLC, App Girls LLC, Modern Distribution LLC, Grayscale Brewing LLC, IHC Investments Inc, Know Naturals LLC, Precision Fill and Pack LLC, and JSZN LLC. Per reporting from the Ohio Capital Journal, those businesses are located across Ohio and in North Carolina, South Carolina, Oregon, and Florida.
Between the two cases, roughly two dozen named companies have federal court protection. The rest of the market does not.
What Ohio’s Attorney General Said About the Split Market
Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson filed a motion to stay the Titan Logistics preliminary injunction and described the resulting market as creating “confusion and chaos into Ohio’s marijuana markets.” Wilson argued that the order creates “a patchwork intoxicating-hemp market that will harm consumers, businesses, and law enforcement.” He also questioned how Ohioans and retailers would identify which THC beverages fall under the court order.
Those concerns, while not persuasive to Judge Helmick on the constitutional question, accurately describe the practical reality on the ground. Ohio’s cannabinoid market now determines a product’s legality based not just on its contents, but also on who manufactured it and whether that company appears in a federal docket.
What Happens Next for Ohio Hemp Companies Not Named in These Cases?
The short answer is that SB 56 applies to them. The longer answer depends on a few moving variables.
The updated Farm Bill provisions are set to shake up the hemp industry this December. The new federal restrictions cap total THC at 0.4 milligrams per container, directly changing how manufacturers produce and sell these products.These federal restrictions carry their own implications for how the Ohio litigation will proceed, since federal law will also restrict much of what SB 56 targets once the deadline hits. The Titan Logistics order was expected to lapse when the federal cap takes effect.
The Delta Beverages preliminary injunction as written ties relief to products that qualify as hemp under federal law. If the federal definition narrows on November 12, the scope of what the injunction protects narrows with it.
Meanwhile, the Ohio Healthy Alternatives Association (OHHAA) released a statement following the Titan Logistics ruling noting that “the fight is far from over” and pledging continued support for its members throughout the litigation. A separate referendum effort by Ohioans for Cannabis Choice, which sought to place repeal of SB 56 on the November 2026 ballot, has also been moving through the Ohio certification process.
Why This Case Matters Beyond Ohio’s Borders
The dormant Commerce Clause analysis in Judge Helmick’s opinions has direct implications for other states attempting to regulate intoxicating hemp in ways that favor in-state supply chains. The legal theory is not unique to Ohio; the same structural problem exists in any state that requires in-state sourcing, manufacturing, or distribution as a condition of participating in the market for hemp-derived products.
Virginia hemp businesses announced plans to seek similar injunctive relief ahead of that state’s August 15th hemp restrictions. Cannabis regulations analysts have noted that Ohio’s split-market outcome is now part of the litigation calculus elsewhere: an injunction somewhere is not an injunction for everyone, and any relief granted is likely to be plaintiff-specific.
Ohio is running an experiment, unintentionally, in what a legally partitioned cannabinoid market looks like. The answer is: complicated, costly to track, and unsustainable as a permanent regulatory structure. Two separate federal court orders now permit specific companies to sell products that the rest of the market cannot, and the state’s enforcement apparatus must account for which products these orders cover.
Frequently Asked Questions
Ohio Senate Bill 56, signed into law in December 2025 and effective March 2026, redefines hemp products with more than 0.3% total THC as marijuana. This effectively bans out-of-state companies from selling intoxicating hemp-derived products, such as THC beverages, in Ohio.
On September 4, 2026, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick issued a preliminary injunction in Delta Beverages Inc. et al. v. Canepa et al., temporarily blocking Ohio from enforcing SB 56’s hemp restrictions. Helmick determined that the plaintiffs had a strong likelihood of winning their dormant Commerce Clause claims, since SB 56 essentially limits Ohio’s federally legal hemp market to businesses that operate entirely within the state.
No. The preliminary injunction does not invalidate SB 56 or resolve the lawsuit. The court grants interim relief to protect specific named plaintiffs from enforcement while the litigation challenges the law’s constitutionality on the merits. SB 56 remains in full effect for any hemp business, retailer, or distributor not named in either court order.
