All posts by Joseph J. Pangaro

COVID-19 Forces Cannabis Industry and State Regulators to Evaluate and Improve Methods of Cannabis Delivery and Access

By Justin A. Santarosa, Arletta Bussiere, Joe Pangaro and Justin Stern

Cannabis operators, like all other businesses, are searching for new ways to reach their customers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cannabis businesses have been generally treated as “essential” under the various state orders that have otherwise closed businesses and ordered people to stay at home. Even though they have been permitted to operate, it is not business-as-usual for these operators as they grapple with CDC workplace restrictions and guidelines for reducing the spread of COVID-19.

As a result of these restrictions, state regulators and cannabis business have begun implementing new policies and procedures such as curbside pick-up, expanded delivery zones and increased use of contactless payment methods. While these changes are viewed as temporary, if properly implemented, cannabis businesses may be able to show regulators that these expanded policies should continue after the crisis has passed. This difficult time presents an opportunity for cannabis retailers to expand their reach and help bolster support for more online ordering, home delivery and other delivery methods.

Below is a summary of how several states have handled the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to the operations of cannabis businesses during the stay at home orders. Continue reading COVID-19 Forces Cannabis Industry and State Regulators to Evaluate and Improve Methods of Cannabis Delivery and Access

Next Chapter in the Big Sky Case: Idaho State Court Approves Seizure of Hemp

On January 21, 2020, an Idaho state court held the Idaho State Police had the authority to seize a shipment of federally lawful hemp that was transported through Idaho in January 2019. Idaho State Police v. One White 2013 Freightliner Commercial Vehicle et al. Although the hemp businesses involved had turned to federal courts for help, when we last left off with the story, the Ninth Circuit had held that the federal courts should abstain from hearing the case until the Idaho state courts fully resolved both the pending criminal and civil actions. Big Sky Scientific LLC v. Jan Bennetts et al.[1]

Big Sky Scientific, LLC, a Colorado-based hemp processor, had purchased hemp from a state-licensed hemp cultivator in Oregon after passage of the 2018 Farm Bill. The parties arranged to ship the hemp from Oregon to Colorado via motor carrier. En route to Colorado, the shipment entered Idaho, where the Idaho police seized the cargo and arrested the driver, alleging violations of Idaho state law. Idaho initiated a state court criminal proceeding against the driver, and a state court civil proceeding against the hemp itself, to ensure the hemp would not be returned to Big Sky.

In response, Big Sky filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in federal court to force the Idaho State Police to return the seized cargo and stop seizing hemp shipments that pass through the state. The federal District Court ruled in favor of the Idaho State Police, and on appeal, the Ninth Circuit declined to rule on the merits of the case, and instead sent it back to state court. Shortly after the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, prosecutors announced the state reached a plea deal with the trucker that had been charged with illegally transporting hemp through Idaho. With the criminal case resolved, only the civil proceeding against the hemp itself remained.

In the state court civil proceeding the state police “implicitly conceded that the plant and plant parts it seized were entirely low-THC C. sativa.” With this fact established, the court turned to the statutes at issue—the 2014 Farm Bill, the 2018 Farm Bill, and the Idaho Controlled Substances Act—to consider whether federal law regarding an entity’s ability to transport hemp in interstate commerce preempted Idaho state law. Central to this argument is a provision in the 2018 Farm Bill that provides “No state or Indian tribe shall prohibit the transportation or shipment of hemp or hemp products produced in accordance with” the Agricultural Marketing Act.

It was undisputed that the hemp seized by the state police was cultivated prior to passage of the 2018 Farm Bill. Therefore, in order for Big Sky to prevail, the court would need to find the provision of 2018 Farm Bill that protects hemp transportation applied retroactively to hemp cultivated under the 2014 Farm Bill. The Idaho police argued it did not, and the court agreed: “the plain language of the [2018] Farm Bill . . . applies only to low-THC C. sativa grown after the enactment of the 2018 Farm Bill and after the various regulations . . . have been promulgated.”

The court then turned to the question of whether the hemp at issue, which was grown in accordance with Oregon state law, was even compliant with the 2014 Farm Bill. The court held that Oregon’s 2014 hemp program was non-compliant for two crucial reasons.

First, Big Sky argued that the Oregon cultivator’s sale of his hemp crop “may be considered research into the marketing” of hemp—a common assertion among hemp businesses that sell their crops and are licensed pursuant to a 2014 Farm Bill program. But the court scoffed at that rationale. “That argument is absurd on its face. . . . he wasn’t growing the crop to help the Oregon Department of Agriculture do research, he was trying to make money.”

Second, the court found Oregon’s hemp law was so dissimilar to both the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills that hemp cultivated under Oregon’s program could not be considered compliant with federal law. The 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills define hemp as only those Cannabis sativa L. plants with a THC concentration of 0.3% or less, but the Oregon hemp laws only require the 0.3% THC concentration to apply crop wide. “Through the miracle of legal linguistics and basic math, C. sativa plants that would be ‘marijuana’ under Oregon law if grown individually, suddenly became ‘hemp’ if grown in the right field.” Additionally, while federal law defines hemp only with respect to Cannabis sativa L., Oregon law does not limit the definition to only that strain of cannabis. Thus, a field of Cannabis indica with a crop-wide average of 0.3% THC would be lawful hemp in Oregon, but illegal federally. Accordingly, the Court found there is insufficient evidence that the hemp at issue was botanically within the federal definition of cannabis permitted under the 2014 Farm Bill

This last holding could portend continued problems for hemp transportation through Idaho, and perhaps elsewhere. For example, while this litigation was ongoing, in November 2019, Idaho Governor Brad Little issued executive order 2019-13, which ordered “the State of Idaho permit, on and after October 31, 2019, the interstate transportation of hemp produced in accordance with the 2014 Farm Bill or the 2018 Farm Bill and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.” Although clearly intended to prevent future litigation on this issue, under the Idaho state court opinion, if a state in which the hemp was grown has a definition of hemp not identical to the federal definition, the grower/transporter might be required to offer proof that the its hemp meets the federal definition. Stay tuned.

For Further Information

 If you have any questions about this blog post, please contact David Landau, Joe Pangaro, any of the attorneys in our Cannabis Industry Group or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

[1] Duane Morris filed an amicus brief on behalf of the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp in support of Big Sky, arguing that an adverse ruling would have a serious negative impact on the hemp industry. (Duane Morris is the national law firm partner of the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp.). Duane Morris has previously written about the oral argument before the Ninth Circuit and the court’s subsequent decision that remanded the case to state court.

Oregon Court Stays Ban of Flavored E-Vaping Products

On September 26, 2019, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) issued a public health warning to Oregon citizens “urging people to immediately stop using all vaping products.”  Shortly thereafter, on October 3, 2019, Gov. Kate Brown issued Executive Order 19-09.  EO 19-09 directed the Oregon Health Authority and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) to adopt emergency rules banning the sale of all flavored vaping products for 180 days.

In response, on October 11, 2019, the OHA and OLCC issued temporary rules that banned all flavored vaping product sales in the state.  In a statement announcing the emergency rules, the agencies explained that “[t]he ban covers all tobacco and cannabis (marijuana and hemp) vaping products that contain natural or artificial flavors . . . [t]obacco-flavored tobacco or nicotine products, as well as marijuana-flavored marijuana or THC products that use only marijuana-derived flavorings, including terpenes, are not included in the ban.”  The ban was set to take effect on October 15, 2019, and last for six months.

However, a group of vaping-related businesses filed suit in Oregon state court, seeking judicial review of the emergency rule.  On October 17, 2019, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an Order that temporarily stayed the enforcement of these rules, pending the court’s ultimate decision on the matter.  Vapor Technology Association, et al. v. Oregon Health Authority, No. A172417 (Or. Ct. App., Oct. 17, 2019).

This stay comes just days after a Michigan court issued a preliminary injunction to prohibit a similar emergency ban from taking effect.  Over the past several weeks states throughout the country, including Rhode Island, Washington, and Montana have issued similar bans on flavored vaping products. New York’s contemplated ban on menthol-flavored nicotine vaping products was put on hold following a temporary stay on the ban issued by a court. These recent court decisions staying and enjoining such bans indicate that additional challenges may be forthcoming in those jurisdictions and any others that institute similar bans.

Federal Court Halts Indiana’s Ban on Smokeable Hemp

On September 13, 2019, a federal district court in the Southern District of Indiana issued an Order regarding Indiana’s treatment of “smokeable hemp” that could have far-reaching consequences for the hemp industry.  C.Y. Wholesale Inc. et al. v. Holcomb et al., 1:19-cv-02659 (S.D. In., Sep. 13, 2019). The court issued a preliminary injunction against the state of Indiana that prohibits the enforcement of certain provisions of a new Indiana law that regulated criminalized the manufacture, finance, delivery, or possession of “smokeable hemp.”  Id.

On May 2, 2019, Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb signed Senate Enrolled Act No. 516 (the “Act”) into law.  Among other things, the Act made it a Class A misdemeanor to manufacture, deliver, finance the manufacture or delivery of, or possess “smokeable hemp.” Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10.1. The Act defined “smokeable hemp” as “a product containing not more than three-tenths percent (0.3%) delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), including precursors and derivatives of THC, in a form that allows THC to be introduced into the human body by inhalation of smoke.” Ind. Code § 35-48-1-26.6.

The Act’s prohibition on “smokeable hemp” is not unique.  For instance, Kentucky’s industrial hemp regulations list products that are not to be sold to the public, and those products include “Hemp cigarettes” and “Hemp Cigars.” 302 Ky. Admin. Regs. 50:070. And the North Carolina legislature is considering a bill that would similarly ban “smokeable hemp.” Such bans are viewed as assisting local law enforcement in the performance of their duties.  As federally lawful hemp and federally unlawful marijuana have the same appearance and a virtually identical smell, police officers throughout the country often have trouble distinguishing between the two.  A ban on “smokeable hemp” would help officers and citizens avoid the waste of time and resources that could be caused by confusing unlawful marijuana and lawful hemp.

However, on June 28, 2019, a few days before the Act became effective, a group of Indiana businesses that sell hemp products at wholesale or retail filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prohibit enforcement of the smokeable hemp ban.  The plaintiffs argued Indiana’s smokeable hemp ban was unconstitutional because it was preempted by the 2018 Farm Bill and because it violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Court agreed.

First, the court held that Indiana’s “smokeable hemp” ban was impermissible because it was not limited in scope to intrastate activities, and as such interfered with interstate commerce.  The 2018 Farm Bill explicitly provides “No State or Indian Tribe shall prohibit the transportation or shipment of hemp or hemp products produced in accordance with,” federal or state law.  2018 Farm Bill § 10114.  By criminalizing the delivery and possession of “smokeable hemp,” the Act precludes transportation of hemp or hemp products through Indiana “and thus impede[s] the interstate commerce of hemp in contravention of the 2018 Farm Bill’s express prohibition on state laws that do so.” C.Y. Wholesale Inc. et al., 1:19-cv-02659 at 8. For instance, the court explained, “a driver traveling along I-74 from Ohio to Illinois who passes through Indiana with smokeable hemp in the vehicle, including hemp bud or hemp flower, would be in ‘possession’ of smokeable hemp and thus subject to arrest and criminal penalties under SEA 516.” Id.

Second, the court held Plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their conflict preemption claim.  “[T]he plain language of the 2018 Farm Bill, as well as statements from its legislative sponsors, reflect Congress’s intent to de-stigmatize and legalize all low-THC hemp, including its derivatives and extracts, and to treat hemp as a regulated agricultural commodity in the United States.” Id. at 10. However, Indiana’s smokeable hemp ban would “criminalize the manufacture, finance, delivery, and possession of hemp bud and hemp flower—hemp derivatives of the kind specifically legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill—[which] frustrates these congressional purposes and objectives.” Id. at 11.

Although the dispute has not been finally resolved, in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court has given a strong indication of its view on the matter. If the court ultimately finds Indiana’s law unconstitutional, it is likely to impact other federal court analysis of similar state laws across the country. Duane Morris will continue to monitor this case and will provide additional updates as necessary.