rewrite this title and make it good for SEOJudge upholds Alaska limitations on intoxicating hemp-derived THC

Alaska can continue restricting the sale of intoxicating hemp-derived THC products to licensed marijuana stores after a federal judge dismissed hemp merchants’ efforts to overturn rules enacted in 2023.

The May 23 ruling by U.S. District Court of Alaska Magistrate Judge Kyle Reardon rejected an argument from hemp merchants that the state’s Department of Natural Resources violated the U.S. Constitution when the agency moved to significantly curtail intoxicating products classified as industrial hemp, the Alaska Beacon reported.

The ruling means that ongoing enforcement efforts against hemp merchants selling intoxicating products can continue.

And it’s the latest sign that states will continue their efforts to regulate or curb the hemp-derived THC products that have proliferated across the country since the 2018 Farm Bill.

Plaintiffs in the case, including the Alaska Industrial Hemp Association, did not immediately comment to the Beacon.

Alaska’s move to curb intoxicating hemp sales began in 2023, when Gov. Mike Dunleavy directed an expert panel to propose amendments to state industrial hemp laws to account for the rise of the loosely regulated products.

That fall, Alaska’s Department of Natural Resources adopted new rules that forbade the agency from endorsing “an industrial hemp product that contains delta-9-THC or a non-naturally occurring cannabinoid” such as delta-8 or delta-10 THC, as Reardon’s ruling noted.

That move effectively banned hemp retailers from selling products with any detectable level of THC.

A lawsuit soon followed, with the plaintiffs arguing the rulemaking process violated their constitutional rights as well as the 2018 Farm Bill and the U.S. Constitution’s dormant commerce clause.

But later filings failed to show any “genuine issue of material fact” supporting those claims, Reardon noted while dismissing the challenge.

Alaska Assistant Attorney General Kevin Higgins, who defended the state in court, told the Beacon that the state “was motivated by public safety concerns when it took measured action to regulate an emerging industry.”