Ohio Brewing Companies Sue to Keep Intoxicating Hemp-Derived Beverages Legal

Four stakeholders in Ohio’s hemp-derived beverage market filed a lawsuit on March 6 in the state’s Supreme Court to stop what they call Gov. Mike DeWine’s "lawless executive overreach."

Four Ohio hemp-derived beverage operators filed a writ of mandamus with the state Supreme Court last Friday asking it to reverse Gov. Mike DeWine's line-item veto of a provision in a hemp and cannabis bill that would have allowed "drinkable cannabinoid products" to be sold in the state through the end of 2026.

In addition to modifying the state's legal marijuana program, Senate Bill 56 sought to align state hemp laws with forthcoming federal restrictions on hemp-derived cannabinoids set to take place in November. While lawmakers had originally sought to allow intoxicating hemp-derived beverage sales at grocery and liquor stores, after Congress imposed the restrictions last fall, they amended SB 56 to create a temporary program to allow sales of hemp beverages with up to 5 milligrams of THC through the end of this year.

That would have allowed companies such as plaintiff Fifty West, which had spent $500,000 on hemp beverage infrastructure in 2024, up to a year to unload their product inventory as they transitioned to the post-hemp era. The other plaintiffs are also hemp beverages businesses, including Urban Artifact out of Cincinnati, Sarene Craft Beer Distributors in Sarene, and Cycling Frog, a Seattle-based distributor whose principal place of business is Delaware, Ohio.

But DeWine issued a line-item veto killing that provision when he signed the bill in December, making hemp-derived cannabinoid beverages illegal by the end of next week.

"A carve-out to allow the further sale of intoxicating hemp beverages for most of 2026 will create confusion for consumers and a lack of conformity with federal law," DeWine wrote in his line-item veto message. "Further, purveyors of intoxicating hemp often market their products as an alcohol substitute, even claiming health benefits. The facts are that THC is not analogous to alcohol, is metabolized differently than alcohol, and does not intoxicate in the same way as alcohol does. This can mislead consumers into thinking these products will have the same effect on them as alcohol, when there is no way to guarantee such claims, thus creating safety issues."

But that was no line-item veto, the plaintiffs argued. DeWine's veto did not delete a line but 17 sections of the bill, running to 15 pages of text, and was thus unconstitutional. They seek relief in the form of the state Supreme Court ordering Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) to honor the original exception for hemp-derived beverages that would run through the end of the year.

"The veto is pure policymaking and executive overreach," the plaintiffs argued in the lawsuit. "Governor DeWine turned a sales window into a ban. He rewrote SB 56 – through clever deletions – so that it means the exact opposite of what the people’s representatives hammered out in the democratic process. … Governor DeWine’s purported line-item veto is null and void under any reasonable interpretation of ‘item.’"

Unless the court acts, the companies warn they face potential criminal prosecution for possessing newly illegal inventory that they purchased in good faith. They also argue that they will lose investments and sales and be forced to lay off dozens of employees.

In addition to DeWine and Secretary of State LaRose, the lawsuit includes Ohio Division of Cannabis Control Superintendent James Canepa and Ohio Division of Liquor Control Superintendent Jackie DeGenova as respondents. The plaintiffs are asking the court to order the two superintendents to begin drafting policies that align with the hemp beverage carve-out originally included in SB 56.

When lawmakers were debating SB 56 last fall, House Minority Leader Dani Isaacson (D-Cincinnati) worried that even that year-long extension was not long enough.

"That is a massive market for jobs. It’s a huge consumer market," Isaacson said. "Businesses need to be able to plan. These are small businesses. They don’t have a ton of capital. And so, they needed a commitment from the Legislature that we were going to create a safe and regulated market for these incredibly desirable products that people are buying that are fueling the craft brewery industry."

And now they need action from the state Supreme Court to stave off the financial disaster looming behind DeWine's veto.