A second Ohio judge last week granted a temporary restraining order to halt its implementation SB 56new state policy banning the sale of intoxicating hemp products, WCMH reports.

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey Brown’s ruling supports the plaintiffs, Happy Harvest and Get Wright Lounge, in their lawsuit challenging the new policy. The lawsuit alleges that SB 56 violates federal law by classifying hemp-derived THC products as cannabis, not hemp, and by regulating them under the state’s adult-use cannabis program.

State Rep. Jennifer Gross (R), who supports overturning SB 56, told WCMH that the issue goes beyond the definitions of hemp versus cannabis products — that “It’s about whether the Ohio Constitution still means what it says.”

“When a conference committee can rewrite a bill overnight, remove provisions that gave it a majority, and then pass it without three readings or proper committee review, every Ohioan loses — no matter what side of the issue they’re on. I took an oath on the Constitution and I intend to uphold it.” – Gross, in the report

Brown’s ruling is the second ruling against SB 56 by a Sandusky County Common Pleas judge ruled in early April that the policy change is “inherently discriminatory,” ordering a stay on its implementation until a preliminary ruling is reached. The first ruling applies only to the plaintiffs in this case and only to specific local operations. Meanwhile, the Brown ruling applies nationwide, but affects only plaintiffs.

SB 56, which took effect March 31, also created new criminal penalties for the possession and consumption of cannabis products from out-of-state sources.

A coalition of hemp industry stakeholders and advocacy groups filed a temporary restraining order against the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) and the Texas Health and Human Services Commission on Tuesday, seeking to block recently implemented ban on smoked hemp products, Texas Tribune reports.

Enacted on March 31, the ban bans the sale of cannabis flowers, pre-rolls and vaporizers. DSHS officials targeted the products by updating state regulations to count the cannabinoid THCA — which by itself is not intoxicating, but when decarboxylated (heated or burned), turns into delta-9 THC — toward the maximum THC allowed in hemp products. According to state law, hemp-derived products must not exceed the federal limit of 0.3% THC content.

In their challenge, however, the plaintiffs argue that state officials lacked the authority to issue such sweeping changes.

“Under current Texas law, hemp is defined by its delta-9 THC concentration of no more than 0.3%. These Texas officials and state agencies are clearly trying to create new law in direct opposition to what the Texas legislature intended.” — David Sergi, attorney for the Hemp Coalition, in a press release

Meanwhile, officials also passed new product testing and age verification requirements and significantly raised the state’s hemp licensing fees. The Hemp Industry Coalition is not challenging those changes.

“Texas hemp businesses wholeheartedly support those regulations, as they are under the agency’s authority,” Sergi said in the report. “We’re seeking to stop rules that would effectively end the state’s production of hemp and the sale of hemp products — items the Legislature chose not to ban during recent legislative and special sessions.”