TL;DR
Two separate Texas rules restrict hemp, and they are being challenged in two separate court systems. Both restrictions are currently in force. The state-court injunction was lifted June 5; the federal emergency motion was denied August 10. Nothing is scheduled. Hemp-derived Delta 9 at or below 0.3% was never part of either fight and remains legal in Texas.
If you have tried to follow the Texas hemp litigation, you have probably run into coverage that mixes up the cases. There are two different rules, two different court systems, four different judges, and at least three different dates people cite as "the ban." This page keeps them straight and gets updated as rulings land.
First: the two rules being challenged
Rule one — the "Total THC" rule, effective March 31, 2026. Texas DSHS consumable-hemp rules that calculate total THC as delta-9 plus 0.877 × THCA. Because commercial THCA flower carries 15–30% THCA, this pushes essentially all of it over the 0.3% line. This is the rule that makes THCA flower non-compliant in Texas. It also raised retail registration from $155 to $5,000 per location and manufacturer licensing from $258 to $10,000 a year.
Rule two — the scheduling notice, effective July 31, 2026. Published July 10 at 51 TexReg 4597, this reinstated 2021-era clarifications placing non-delta-9 THC isomers on the Texas controlled-substances schedule: delta-8, delta-10, delta-6, THCP, THC-O and HHC, plus anything made by chemically converting CBD. These become Penalty Group 2 substances; possession is charged by weight under Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.116, starting at a state jail felony.
A point worth being precise about, because most coverage gets it wrong: the July 31 notice does not name THCA. THCA's problem in Texas comes from the March 31 Total THC rule. Both are enforceable today, so the practical result is the same — but they are different instruments, challenged in different courts, and they can fall independently.
Case 1 — State court: Texas Hemp Business Council v. DSHS
What it challenges: the March 31 Total THC rules, including the THCA conversion formula, the smokable-hemp restriction, and the fee increases.
Where: Travis County District Court, Cause No. D-1-GN-26-002511, now on appeal at the Fifteenth Court of Appeals (No. 15-26-00099-CV).
| Apr 7, 2026 | Suit filed |
| Apr 10, 2026 | Judge Maya Guerra Gamble issues a temporary restraining order |
| May 1, 2026 | Judge Daniella DeSeta Lyttle grants a temporary injunction after a three-day hearing |
| May 7, 2026 | Fifteenth Court of Appeals temporarily reinstates the injunction |
| Jun 5, 2026 | Appellate court lifts the injunction. Rehearing denied June 26 |
| Jul 27, 2026 | Scheduled trial does not proceed — stayed pending appeal |
| Aug 14, 2026 | Council files a brief seeking to reinstate the injunction. Undecided |
Status: the industry is losing. The injunction is not in effect, the March 31 rules are enforceable, and trial cannot proceed until the appeals court rules. If you see an article saying "a Texas judge blocked the hemp ban," check the date — that was true in April and May, and has not been true since June 5.
Case 2 — Texas Supreme Court: DSHS v. Sky Marketing Corp. (Hometown Hero)
What it decided: whether DSHS could schedule hemp-derived isomers as controlled substances at all. Case No. 23-0887.
Decided May 1, 2026, with the mandate issuing June 5, 2026. The ruling cleared the path for DSHS to reinstate its scheduling clarifications — which it did on July 10, effective July 31. This case is why the July 31 action happened. It is finished.
Case 3 — Federal court: Monti v. Garcia
What it challenges: the July 31 scheduling action.
Where: No. 3:26-cv-00254, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division, before Judge Jeffrey V. Brown. Filed July 31, 2026 — the day the ban took effect. Most press covered it on August 3, which is why that date circulates.
Who is suing. The plaintiff mix is deliberate and tells you what the legal theory is:
- Thomas Monti — a retired Illinois State Police officer, 23 years of service, who manages a hemp store in Galveston County and uses a half delta-8 gummy nightly for documented PTSD and chronic pain. He is the consumer-possession plaintiff.
- Lifted Liquids, Inc. — an Illinois manufacturer with a cGMP facility in Kenosha, Wisconsin, shipping nationwide including into Texas. This is the interstate-commerce plaintiff.
- The Happy Cactus Apothecary LLC — an Austin retailer that also sells online into roughly 25 states.
The four claims: declaratory judgment; void-for-vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment; federal preemption under the 2018 Farm Bill and the Supremacy Clause; and unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce under the dormant Commerce Clause.
Lead counsel Andrea Steel framed it this way: "For more than seven years, Texans have built a multibillion-dollar hemp industry under laws that define these products as legal hemp. Without any change to those laws, the State now says they're Schedule I drugs, like heroin."
The August 10 ruling, and the sentence that matters
On Sunday, August 10, 2026, Judge Brown denied the emergency temporary restraining order. What was denied was only the TRO — the case was not dismissed and nothing was decided on the merits.
His reasoning is the part worth reading carefully. He found the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the due-process and Commerce Clause claims, and had not shown irreparable harm. Specifically, he found the complaint "focused on losing access to the Texas market rather than demonstrating a need to transport hemp products through Texas in interstate commerce."
That is a narrow reading of Section 10114(b) of the 2018 Farm Bill, which bars states from prohibiting the transportation or shipment of hemp through the state. Judge Brown is treating it as a protection for hemp passing through Texas — not a right to sell into Texas. Every out-of-state online seller has been relying on the broader reading. If this one holds, that reliance is misplaced.
Steel's response was accurate: a TRO is emergency relief held to one of the toughest standards in federal law, and denial does not decide the case. She also noted that state officials had claimed no immediate enforcement threat, and asked why the ban was enacted if that were so.
Status: preliminary injunction motion pending. No hearing date has been made public. A TRO denial is generally not appealable, so no Fifth Circuit appeal is expected until there is a ruling on the preliminary injunction.
Case 4 — The federal statute nobody is suing over yet
Worth naming because it may make all of the above academic. The federal hemp redefinition — total THC inclusive of THCA at 0.3%, plus a 0.4 mg per-container cap — is scheduled for November 12, 2026. The Senate voted August 8 to move it to December 11 for naturally-derived products, but that is not law yet.
Here is the problem for the Texas plaintiffs: their preemption argument depends on the 2018 Farm Bill's definition of hemp. If that definition changes in November, the federal law they are invoking changes underneath them, and THCA stops being federally legal hemp nationwide. We found no federal lawsuit challenging Section 781 itself. If someone tells you one exists, ask for a docket number.
Enforcement while the cases run
Enforcement varies sharply by county, which matters more than any single ruling for day-to-day risk.
Aggressive: Austin PD said on July 28 it would treat delta-8 possession as a state jail felony — a reversal from May. A Jefferson County prosecutor said in early August: "If it comes back illegal, we're going to prosecute the case." San Antonio PD and the Bexar County DA have said they will enforce and prosecute.
Restrained: the Bexar County Sheriff's Office said it is "not planning any large-scale operations" and that violent crime remains the priority. DSHS itself said in June it was "still determining how to proceed."
The lab bottleneck. Texas prosecutors have been advised that labs must run quantitative analysis to establish exact percentage weights — detecting THC is not enough, because legal hemp can contain up to 0.3% delta-9. Texas labs are already backlogged on sexual assault kits and blood draws. Defense attorneys expect a wave of arrests that ends in dismissals. That is not reassurance if you are the one arrested, and there is no state procedure for disposing of product that was legal when you bought it.
What to watch
- The Fifteenth Court of Appeals on the August 14 brief. Reinstating the state injunction would put THCA flower back in play in Texas retail.
- Judge Brown's preliminary-injunction ruling in Monti. The first substantive federal answer to whether a state can schedule federally compliant hemp.
- House action on the federal deadline when Congress returns at the end of August.
What Texans can legally buy right now
Hemp-derived Delta 9 gummies, edibles and beverages at or below 0.3% delta-9 THC by dry weight were never part of either Texas rule and remain legal. Compliant CBD is unaffected. Retailers who pivoted to compliant delta-9 have reported little sales disruption; those dependent on delta-8 and THCA have not.
For the full picture see our Texas shipping guide and Texas Delta 9 guide.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Texas hemp ban blocked by a court right now?
No. The state-court temporary injunction was lifted on June 5, 2026 and a motion to reinstate it filed August 14 is undecided. In federal court, an emergency restraining order was denied on August 10, 2026. Both Texas restrictions are in force.
Which judge denied the Texas hemp TRO?
Judge Jeffrey V. Brown, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division, on August 10, 2026, in Monti v. Garcia, No. 3:26-cv-00254.
Did Texas ban THCA or delta-8?
Both, but through different instruments. Delta-8, delta-10, delta-6, THCP, THC-O and HHC were scheduled as controlled substances effective July 31, 2026. THCA flower became non-compliant earlier, under the March 31, 2026 Total THC rule that counts THCA at 0.877×.
Is hemp Delta 9 still legal in Texas?
Yes. Hemp-derived delta-9 THC at or below 0.3% by dry weight under Texas Agriculture Code ch. 121 was not part of either action.
Last updated August 18, 2026. We update this page as rulings land. General information, not legal advice.