On August 28, 2019, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judges Hawkins, McKeown and Bybee heard oral argument in\u00a0Big Sky Scientific LLC v. Jan Bennetts et al.<\/i><\/p>\n
To review the background briefly, Big Sky Scientific, LLC, a Colorado-based hemp processor, purchased federally lawful hemp from a state-licensed hemp cultivator in Oregon. The parties arranged to ship the hemp from Oregon to Colorado via motor carrier.\u00a0En route\u00a0<\/i>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 District Court denied Big Sky\u2019s motion, and Big Sky appealed. That appeal was the basis of the oral argument. Duane Morris filed an\u00a0amicus<\/i>\u00a0brief<\/a>\u00a0on 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.\u00a0(Duane Morris is the national law firm partner of the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp.)<\/p>\n