Last week, a judge in Franklin County cleared the way for stores across Ohio to resume selling intoxicating hemp products at least temporarily. The ruling comes after a 14-day temporary restraining order (TRO) was granted on Mike DeWine’s executive order banning the sale of such products. Ohio Capital Journal
What Happened
- On October 8, 2025, DeWine signed a 90-day executive order declaring a public health emergency and banning the sale of intoxicating hemp products, including delta-8 THC edibles and THC-infused beverages, in all retail outlets outside licensed marijuana dispensaries. Ohio Capital Journal
- Under the order, retailers faced fines of $500 per day for each day intoxicating hemp products remained on their shelves after the ban took effect on October 14. Ohio Capital Journal
- Within hours, multiple hemp retailers and manufacturers filed suit, arguing that the executive order exceeded the governor’s authority and violated both federal and Ohio hemp law. Ohio Capital Journal
- On October 14, Carl Aveni, a judge of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, granted a temporary restraining order pausing the ban. The judge found the executive order “antithetical” to the existing statutory definition of hemp under Ohio law. The Statehouse News Bureau
- As a result, thousands of small businesses smoke shops, CBD stores, convenience stores, and gas stations, can once again legally sell hemp products containing THC, while the legal challenge proceeds. Ohio Capital Journal
What This Means for Ohio Businesses and Consumers
For many hemp retailers, the ruling was an immediate relief. Some businesses that had considered closing or laying off staff expressed gratitude that their livelihoods wouldn’t be abruptly disrupted. Ohio Capital Journal
The case also underscores a broader tension in how states regulate hemp-derived cannabinoids. The plaintiffs argue that under the 2018 Farm Bill and Ohio law, hemp containing up to 0.3 % THC is legal, and there is no legal basis for the governor to declare all hemp products “intoxicating” and ban them by executive order. Ohio Capital Journal
On the other hand, proponents of the ban, including DeWine, cited public-health concerns. Among the key issues: reports of accidental poisonings tied to delta-8 hemp products, including incidents involving young children. Ohio Capital Journal
Why Legislative Action Seems Inevitable
Judge Aveni’s ruling emphasized that the state legislature — not the executive — should define and regulate intoxicating hemp. The Statehouse News Bureau
Indeed, there are currently multiple bills under consideration in the state legislature that would impose stricter regulations or even bans on intoxicating hemp products. Ohio Capital Journal
Until lawmakers act, Ohio remains in a state of legal ambiguity: hemp retailers are free to operate, but consumers and store owners still face uncertainty about what will be allowed long-term.
What This Means for Policymakers and Advocates
From a regulatory and policy advocacy standpoint, this case illustrates two important lessons:
- Due Process and Separation of Powers Matter: Attempting to impose sweeping bans via executive order, without clear statutory authority, may not withstand judicial scrutiny.
- The Regulation vs. Prohibition Debate Remains Unresolved: The question remains whether intoxicating hemp products should be regulated (through testing, age limits, and packaging restrictions) or prohibited altogether. That decision now rests with the Ohio General Assembly.
For advocates of limited government and legal clarity like yourself, the court ruling is a win for property rights, small business owners, and consumers who value access to hemp-derived products. At the same time, it highlights the need for durable legislative solutions rather than temporary executive fixes.