Businesses Challenge Ohio’s Hemp Product Ban in Court Hearing
Two Ohio businesses told a judge Monday that the state’s hemp product ban destroyed their operations, seeking court relief from the March law.
COLUMBUS, OHIO — Two Ohio businesses argued Monday that the state’s new law banning low-level THC hemp products has severely impacted their operations during a preliminary injunction hearing in Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Happy Harvest and Get Wright Lounge filed the lawsuit challenging Ohio Senate Bill 56, which took effect March 20 after advocacy group Ohioans for Cannabis Choice failed to gather enough signatures to place a referendum blocking the law on the November ballot.
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Magistrate Jhay Spottswood-Harrison presided over Monday’s preliminary injunction hearing, where attorneys presented arguments about the law’s impact on local businesses.
Attorney Cites Business Devastation
Scott Pullins, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, told the court that the legislation has completely shut down his clients’ operations. “This bill completely put my clients out of business,” Pullins said during the hearing.
The attorney explained the challenges businesses faced when the ban took effect. “There were no ways to get rid of the inventory except to destroy it, and the court attempted and succeeded in fashioning a fair and equity remedy to solve that problem. Now, would we like to see it extended statewide to any other retailers in a similar situation,” Pullins stated.
Temporary Relief Previously Granted
The current legal challenge follows previous court action in the case. Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey M. Brown issued a 14-day temporary restraining order on April 22, providing some relief to the businesses affected by the hemp product prohibition.
The lawsuit represents the latest legal effort to challenge Ohio’s evolving cannabis and hemp regulations. Senate Bill 56 not only banned certain hemp products containing low levels of THC but also made changes to the state’s existing marijuana laws.
Statewide Implications
The case could have broader implications for other Ohio retailers selling similar products. The preliminary injunction hearing focused on whether the court should provide temporary relief while the lawsuit proceeds through the legal system.
The failed referendum effort by Ohioans for Cannabis Choice had sought to give voters the opportunity to overturn the legislative changes. Without sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot, the law remained in effect as scheduled.
The businesses argue that the sudden implementation of the ban left them with inventory they could only dispose of through destruction, creating significant financial losses. The court will need to weigh these business concerns against the state’s regulatory authority over hemp and cannabis products.
The preliminary injunction hearing is a step in determining whether businesses will receive temporary relief while the broader constitutional and legal challenges to Senate Bill 56 move forward through the court system.
