Connecticut officials moved to dismiss a federal lawsuit brought by nearly a dozen hemp retailers challenging state laws regulating hemp-derived products with high levels of THC, arguing the plaintiffs lack standing and that federal hemp legislation doesn’t prevent states from implementing stricter regulations, Law360 first reported.
In a motion filed last week in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, state attorneys asked Judge Victor A. Bolden to toss the case, arguing that the retailers failed to demonstrate any actual injury from the 2024 public acts they’re challenging.
“Plaintiffs have failed to allege any injury traceable to any of the public acts or statutes they are challenging and, therefore, have not satisfied Article III standing requirements,” wrote state attorneys in their 42-page memorandum supporting the motion to dismiss.
The lawsuit, filed in November by Abdul Al Qadomi and several companies operating “Puff City” retail stores throughout Connecticut, challenges three 2024 public acts (PA 24-76, PA 24-95, and PA 24-115) that regulate products containing delta-8 THC.
In their motion, state officials argue that the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp at the federal level, neither creates a private right of action for retailers nor prevents states from establishing stricter regulations on hemp products.
“The 2018 Farm Bill explicitly does not preempt states from regulating hemp,” the state’s attorneys noted in their filing.
Connecticut defends the regulations as necessary public health measures, arguing that delta-8 THC products have “caused a burgeoning public health crisis nationwide” due to being sold with inadequate regulation despite producing similar intoxicating effects as marijuana.
“The clear intent of the 2024 Public Acts, as well as the preexisting hemp regulations, was to protect youth from harmful products that may be just as intoxicating as cannabis sold on the regulated market, but which were not subject to the same testing as regulated products and were being sold in retail shops where young people can gain access to them,” according to the state’s motion.
The state also argues that the governor and chief state’s attorney should be dismissed as defendants because they lack particularized duties to enforce the laws in question, making them improper parties under the 11th Amendment.
State officials contend that the challenged regulations treat in-state and out-of-state businesses equally, countering plaintiffs’ dormant commerce clause claim. They also argue that the regulations are not unconstitutionally vague as alleged.
The motion cites Centers for Disease Control and Food and Drug Administration advisories that warned about delta-8 THC products’ health risks, including potential for harmful byproducts from manufacturing processes and inadequate testing for contaminants.
According to the state’s filing, retailers’ claims are fatally flawed because they fail to identify specific products they sell that comply with federal law but violate state regulations. The lawsuit is one of several pending in federal courts nationwide addressing tensions between federal hemp legalization and states’ efforts to regulate intoxicating hemp-derived products.
An attorney for the retailers, Genevieve Park Taylor of Sound Legal LLC, told Law360 they plan to fight the dismissal motion.
“We feel certain that we’ve alleged appropriate facts to overcome a motion to dismiss, and we look forward to resolving this matter on its merits to address the harms and impacts our clients have suffered,” Taylor said in a statement to the outlet.
The case remains pending before Bolden, with no hearing date yet set on the motion to dismiss.
2310000-2310907-al-qadomi-v-lamont-memo2310000-2310907-https-ecf-ctd-uscourts-gov-doc1-04119047408 State officials argue retailers lack standing and that federal law doesn’t preempt stricter state-level controls on intoxicating hemp products. Read More
