Missouri Hemp Companies Challenge New Law Banning Intoxicating Products

The Statute and Its Immediate Effect

Missouri's HB 2168, signed into law on June 30, 2026, and effective immediately, prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and sale of any hemp-derived product that is "intoxicating" or contains delta-8 THC, delta-10 THC, THCA, or similar isomers in concentrations exceeding 0.3 percent by dry weight. The law carves out an exception for products sold through the state's licensed adult-use cannabis market, which launched in February 2023 under Article XIV of the Missouri Constitution. Read the statute strictly, and any hemp product that could produce psychoactive effects—regardless of its compliance with the 2018 Farm Bill's definition of hemp—is now contraband outside the regulated cannabis supply chain.

The plaintiffs say this creates a two-tier system. Hemp processors who built businesses around federally legal cannabinoids derived from hemp can't sell those same compounds anymore, while vertically integrated cannabis operators holding state licenses may continue to sell chemically identical products. The complaint calls this distinction arbitrary and preempted by federal law.

Preemption Claim Under the 2018 Farm Bill

The central legal argument is that the 2018 Farm Bill, codified at 7 U.S.C. § 1639o, defines hemp as any part of the cannabis plant with a delta-9 THC concentration not exceeding 0.3 percent on a dry-weight basis, and that this definition preempts state laws that impose additional restrictions on federally legal hemp. The plaintiffs cite the bill's explicit removal of hemp from the Controlled Substances Act and its directive that states may not prohibit the interstate transportation or commerce of hemp produced in compliance with federal standards.

Missouri's statute doesn't contest the delta-9 THC threshold. Instead, it targets other cannabinoids—delta-8, delta-10, THCA—that are chemically distinct from delta-9 but can be synthesized or concentrated from hemp biomass. Plaintiffs contend that because these compounds are derived from federally legal hemp, Missouri can't ban them without running afoul of the Supremacy Clause. The state is expected to argue that it retains police power to regulate intoxicating substances within its borders, a defense that's succeeded in some jurisdictions but failed in others.

Impact on Existing Inventory and Revenue Streams

Both plaintiff companies report that the law renders their entire product catalogs unsalable in Missouri, with combined annual revenue of approximately $4.2 million now at risk. Missouri Hemp Processors LLC, based in Springfield, manufactures delta-8 THC gummies, vape cartridges, and tinctures sold through approximately 300 retail outlets statewide. Show-Me Hemp Co., operating out of Kansas City, focuses on THCA flower and pre-rolls marketed as "legal cannabis alternatives." Neither company holds a state cannabis license. The cost and scarcity of those licenses—Missouri caps the number of cultivation and manufacturing permits—make entry into the regulated market economically infeasible for most hemp operators.

Missouri Hemp Processors has approximately $180,000 in finished goods inventory that became illegal on June 30, according to the complaint. The company has halted production and furloughed six of its twelve employees. Show-Me Hemp Co. reports similar disruption, with $95,000 in unsold THCA flower and no clear legal path to liquidate it. Both companies are seeking a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of HB 2168 while the case proceeds.

The Regulatory Gap and Market Confusion

Missouri's hemp industry has operated in a regulatory gray zone since the 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp cultivation, with no state-level framework governing the manufacture or sale of intoxicating hemp derivatives until HB 2168. The Missouri Department of Agriculture regulates hemp farming under a USDA-approved state plan, but downstream processing and retail sales of hemp-derived cannabinoids fell outside its jurisdiction. The Department of Health and Senior Services, which oversees the medical and adult-use cannabis programs, didn't assert authority over hemp products.

This vacuum allowed a cottage industry of delta-8 and THCA vendors to flourish. Estimates vary, but industry groups suggest that Missouri had between 800 and 1,200 retail locations selling intoxicating hemp products as of early 2026—many of them convenience stores, smoke shops, and gas stations. The legislature's stated rationale for HB 2168 was consumer protection: concerns about unregulated products, lack of lab testing, and sales to minors. The bill's sponsor, State Rep. Hannah Kelly (R-Mountain Grove), said in floor remarks that "we cannot allow a parallel intoxicating market to undermine the regulated system voters approved."

Precedent in Other Jurisdictions

Federal courts have split on whether state bans on intoxicating hemp derivatives survive preemption challenges, with outcomes turning on the specificity of the state statute and the strength of the state's public-health rationale. In 2024, a federal judge in Arkansas granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of a similar ban, finding that the state failed to demonstrate a compelling interest that justified overriding federal hemp policy. By contrast, a Kentucky district court upheld that state's restrictions on delta-8 THC, reasoning that Kentucky's law targeted synthetic cannabinoids rather than naturally occurring hemp compounds.

Missouri's statute is broader than Kentucky's but narrower than Arkansas's. It doesn't ban all hemp products, only those deemed intoxicating or containing specified isomers above the 0.3 percent threshold. Plaintiffs will likely argue that this distinction is cosmetic—that any cannabinoid derived from legal hemp is protected. The state will counter that intoxication, not source material, is the relevant regulatory trigger. The Western District hasn't yet ruled on a comparable question.

The practical effect of HB 2168 is to reserve the intoxicating-cannabinoid market exclusively for state-licensed operators, a carve-out that plaintiffs argue is economic protectionism dressed as public safety.

Next Steps and Timeline

The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on July 16, 2026, alongside the complaint; the court hasn't yet set a hearing date. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, whose office will defend the statute, hasn't issued a public statement on the litigation. The state has 21 days to respond to the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(A). If the court grants a preliminary injunction, enforcement of HB 2168 would be stayed pending trial. Deny the motion, and the plaintiffs face immediate business closure unless they pivot to non-intoxicating hemp products—a category that remains undefined in state law.

For background on Missouri's evolving hemp and cannabis regulatory landscape, see the CannIntel topic hub on Missouri hemp regulation.

What to Watch

The preliminary-injunction hearing will be the first substantive test of HB 2168's constitutional footing. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would signal that Missouri's approach is vulnerable on preemption grounds and could embolden similar challenges in other states that have enacted intoxicating-hemp bans. A ruling for the state would clarify that Missouri retains broad police power to regulate psychoactive substances regardless of their federal hemp status. Either outcome will shape the next round of state legislative sessions.