Missouri Hemp Law Faces Federal Challenge Over Definitions

A coalition of hemp businesses is asking a federal court to strike down Missouri’s new intoxicating hemp law before it takes effect on November 12, 2026, arguing the statute is unconstitutionally vague and conflicts with federal law. The state defends the measure as a straightforward alignment of Missouri’s hemp definition with the new federal standard.

The lawsuit, filed July 16, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, challenges House Bill 2641, known as the Intoxicating Cannabinoid Control Act. Governor Mike Kehoe signed the bill into law on April 23, 2026, during a signing ceremony at the Missouri State Capitol. The measure was sponsored by Representative Dave Hinman and Senator David Gregory.

What the Law Does

According to the bill text, HB 2641 establishes that all hemp-derived cannabinoid products “are marijuana” and subjects them to the legal framework in Article XIV of the Missouri Constitution, which governs marijuana. Under Section 195.900, the cultivation, production, manufacturing, testing, transportation, and retail sale of all hemp-derived cannabinoid products within the state must be conducted solely by entities licensed by the Department of Health and Senior Services under Article XIV.

The statute defines “hemp” as the Cannabis sativa L. plant with a total tetrahydrocannabinol concentration, including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, of not more than three-tenths of one percent on a dry-weight basis. It excludes from that definition any final hemp-derived cannabinoid product containing greater than four-tenths of one milligram combined total per container of tetrahydrocannabinols and other cannabinoids with similar effects.

The law states that the term “hemp-derived cannabinoid product” shall be construed to conform to and be included in the definition of “marijuana” under Article XIV, but shall not be construed to conform to or be included in the definition of “hemp” or “industrial hemp” in the section. Penalties for violation include a fine of five thousand dollars per transaction and a class D felony charge.

The Plaintiffs’ Challenge

The plaintiffs are the MoHemp Trade Association, Lifted Liquids, Inc., a Wisconsin-based manufacturer and distributor, and MNG 2005, Inc., a St. Louis-based retailer, manufacturer, and distributor operating 55 stores in five states. In their announcement of the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue the law “conflicts with federal law, contains contradictory provisions, and leaves existing legal hemp businesses with no path to continue operating.”

The coalition contends that HB 2641 “defines the same products as both ‘hemp’ and ‘marijuana’ in different provisions,” and that because unlicensed marijuana activity is a crime in Missouri, the resulting confusion carries criminal consequences. The lawsuit asks the court to declare the law unconstitutional and prevent it from taking effect.

“HB 2641 is the first law we can’t comply with because it wasn’t written to be complied with,” said David Palatnik, President of MNG 2005 Inc. “There is no license we can apply for.”

The plaintiffs also argue the law is preempted by the federal Farm Bill, which they say expressly prohibited states from blocking the transportation of legal hemp products through their borders. Jay Patel, MoHemp Trade Association President, said the law amounts to “the elimination of an entire legal industry coupled with a government-mandated monopoly.”

The State’s Position

In signing the bill, Governor Kehoe framed it as a consumer-protection measure. “For too long, bad actors have exploited loopholes to market intoxicating products—including candy-like gummies or look-alike products—without meaningful oversight or accountability,” Kehoe said. “This legislation ensures that Missourians know the products sold in their communities are safe, regulated, and kept out of the hands of children.”

The governor’s office stated that HB 2641 “aligns the state’s definition of hemp with the new federal definition, bringing the regulation of hemp-derived cannabinoid products under existing marijuana regulations” and “requires non-licensed entities to discontinue the manufacturing or sale of hemp-derived cannabinoid products.”

The bill text itself addresses the overlap the plaintiffs criticize, stating that hemp and industrial hemp “shall not be considered marijuana” and that nothing in the section “shall be construed to conflict with or otherwise preempt the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018.” The law also states that nothing in it “shall be construed to prohibit the interstate commerce of hemp or the transportation or shipment of hemp through this state.”

The statute’s provisions become effective November 12, 2026, with a conditional timeline for certain products if Congress delays the effective date of federal hemp restrictions.