Case Law Index Industrial Hemp
January 1, 2000 – November 1, 2019
This index provides a comprehensive though not necessarily exhaustive compilation of reported and unreported federal and state court decisions involving Industrial Hemp that were decided between the dates listed above. The cases are listed in reverse chronological order. The “Text” link goes to the freely available Google Scholar text of the opinion. These listings are for educational purposes only, and are not a substitute for legal counsel.
First Circuit
New Hampshire Council, Inc. v. Marshall, 203 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000) (Involving the definition of marijuana as used in federal criminal statutes.) Text
Second Circuit
Horn v. Medical Marijuana Inc, 383 F.Supp.3d 114 (W.D. NY 2019) (Claims made by truck driver for positive THC test include “false advertising,” “deceptive business practices,” fraudulent inducement, racketeering…” The Court granted summary judgement on the majority of these claims, but allowed those pertaining to “fraudulent inducement and civil RICO” to move forward.) Text
Fourth Circuit
United States v. Mallory, 372 F.Supp.3d 377 (Southern District of WV 2019). (Court held that a hemp producer could purchase seeds from an out of state supplier without violating the Controlled Substances Act) Text
Palomo Farms, LLC/Hemport v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, No. 4:17-CV-169-BO, 2018 WL 2768676 (E.D.N.C., June 7, 2018) (Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over case brought against the DEA.) Text
Sixth Circuit
Lorincz v. Etue, No. 16-12290, 2017 WL 712949 (E.D. Mich., Feb. 23, 2017) (Acknowledgement that “industrial hemp” is not included in the definition of “marihuana” when grown for research purposes.) Text
Seventh Circuit
Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 190 F.Supp.3d 843 (E.D. Wis. 2016) (Tribe not allowed to grow hemp under hemp exemption to Controlled Substances Act.) Text
IN RE: Royalty Properties LLC, 604 B.R. 742, (B.R. N.D. Ill. E.D. 2019) (Plans by the debtor to reorganize business as hemp producer not considered reasonable by the court. Formally the business rented property to a hay farmer. The court holds that the transition from hay to hemp would not constitute a reasonable restructuring and thus the bankruptcy is converted form Chapter 11 to Chapter 7.) Text
Eighth Circuit
Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. USDA, 2019 WL 2394256 (D. South Dakota 2019) (injunction against allowing tribe to produce hemp is denied). Text
U.S. v. White Plume, 447 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2006) (Ban on production of industrial hemp pursuant to tribal ordinance upheld.) Text
Monson v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 589 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2009) (Regulation of locally-grown industrialized hemp through CSA did not violate Commerce Clause.) Text
Olsen v. Holder 610 F.Supp.2d. 985 (S.D. Iowa, 2009) (Court lacked jurisdiction over complaint seeking declaration that marijuana’s scheduling as controlled substance was improper.) Text
Ninth Circuit
Innovative Neutracuticals v. United States, 2019 WL 3017672 (C.D. of Cal. 2019). (Customs and Border Patrol must return hemp products seized upon importation. Other claims blocked by sovereign immunity.)
Hemp Industries Association v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, 729 Fed.Appx. 886 (9th Cir. 2018) (Petition to review a new DEA rule that establishes a new code for marijuana extract.) Text
Kiczenski v. Ashcroft, No. Civ S-03-2305 MCE GGH PS., 2006 WL 463153 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24,2006) (Plaintiff alleges that federal government officials have thwarted his attempts to cultivate and use hemp for pain management.) Text
Hemp Industries Association v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, 333 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2003) (Plaintiffs challenge the validity of DEA rule banning the sale of consumable products containing hemp.) Text
Colorado
People v. Cox, 429 P.3d 75 (Colo. 2018) (Trial court abused its discretion in ruling that an affidavit failed to establish probable cause for a search warrant that lead to marijuana charges.) Text
Kentucky
Seum v. Bevin, No. 2017-CA-001695-MR, 2019 WL 1087331 (Ky. Ct. App. March 8, 2019) (Upholding the conclusion of Com. v. Harrelson.) Text
Lundy v. Commonwealth, 511 S.W.3d 398 (Ky. Ct. App. 2017) (Defendant not entitled to a jury definition defining industrial hemp unless defendant was a licensed grower or was otherwise permitted to possess industrial hemp.) Text
Com. v. Harrelson, 14 S.W.3d 541 (Ky. 2000) (Upholding the constitutionality of Kentucky’s marijuana and hemp prohibition laws.) Text
Massachusetts
Hensley v. Attorney General, 53 N.E.3d 639 (2016) (Finding that the initiative petition which proposed an act to regulate and tax marijuana and hemp satisfied the related subjects requirement, but was clearly misleading.) Text
Michigan
People v. Ventura, 894 N.W.2d 108 (Mich. App. 2016) (Determining that the definition of marijuana does not include industrial hemp.) Text
People v. Mansour, 325 Mich. App. 339 (2018) (Reaffirming that the definition of marijuana does not include industrial hemp.) Text
Montana
Montana Cannabis Industry Ass’n v. State, 368 P.3d 1131 (Mont. 2016) (Affirming the constitutionality of certain provisions of the 2011 Montana Medical Marijuana Act.) Text
Tennessee
State v. Fredrickson, No. M2015-01206-CCA-R3-CD, 2016 WL 5540022 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept 29, 2016) (Concluding that if industrial hemp was grown without a license it was classified as marijuana under state law.)