September 16, 2025
The Supreme Court’s June 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo ended the forty-year reign of Chevron deference, sending ripples through the U.S. regulatory system. For the cannabis and hemp sectors—especially companies dealing with CBD, intoxicating hemp derivatives, and emerging cannabinoids—this marks a watershed moment. The new legal era demands a revised approach to federal compliance, litigation strategy, and risk management, as courts reclaim the right to interpret statutes independently rather than deferring to agencies like the FDA and DEA.
From 1984 onward, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council instructed courts to defer to reasonable federal agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This deferential stance allowed agencies—including the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration)—broad authority to shape their regulatory domains, so long as Congress had not directly spoken to the precise question at issue.
In June 2024, Loper Bright reversed course: federal courts must now independently determine the best reading of a statute, giving no special weight to agency interpretations. That means more power—and unpredictability—lands with the courts, and less with the bureaucrats.
Prior to Loper Bright, the FDA’s position—that adding CBD to foods or dietary supplements violates the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA)—rested on its interpretative authority. Courts routinely deferred to the agency’s regulatory stance, based on Chevron.
The FDA also asserted broad discretion in how it managed enforcement (e.g., prioritizing action against companies making medical claims about CBD, or issuing warning letters), and provided industry guidance on subjects like labeling and safety standards.
Now, courts can scrutinize whether the FDA’s longstanding prohibition on CBD in foods and supplements actually fits a straightforward reading of the FDCA, and whether agency guidance exceeds statutory limits. For any regulatory effort—be it new rules, enforcement actions, or warning letters—expect legal challenges that focus intensely on the statute’s text, not just agency reasoning.
Litigation targeting FDA’s authority over cannabinoids is already underway. For example, court decisions in 2025 have begun to scrutinize FDA rulemaking far more closely, such as the April 2025 ruling striking down the FDA’s expansion of “medical device” rules for laboratory-developed tests, based explicitly on the courts’ independent statutory interpretation post–Loper Bright (see Sidley). Expect similar arguments—and uncertainties—in the cannabinoid and hemp sector.
Key Compliance Takeaway: Businesses should align closely with express statutory language in the FDCA and Farm Bill. When labeling, product claims, and safety documentation are at issue, firms should avoid relying solely on past FDA guidance and act conservatively until the legal landscape stabilizes.
The DEA has used interpretive letters, guidance, and rules to define what qualifies as “hemp” versus a controlled substance, with particular focus on “synthetic” cannabinoids, delta-8/9/10-THC analogues, and intoxicating hemp-derived products. Under Chevron, courts largely sided with the DEA’s reading—even where the statutory language was ambiguous, as with the 2018 Farm Bill’s definition of hemp (see 7 U.S.C. § 1639o).
Since Loper Bright, courts are taking a harder look at the statutory definitions of “hemp,” “synthetic cannabinoids,” and “tetrahydrocannabinols.” In Anderson v. Diamondback Investment, the Fourth Circuit, for the first time post-Loper, directly rejected the DEA’s broad reading that certain hemp derivatives are inherently controlled substances—placing the onus on the actual Farm Bill text rather than the DEA’s interpretation (source).
Similarly, DEA “guidance” has lost its automatic weight: as legal analysts at Ronald W. Chapman Law summarize, courts will increasingly disregard DEA interpretive letters when making calls about scheduling or prosecution thresholds for hemp products.
Compliance Takeaway: Document that your product is squarely within statutory safe harbors. For hemp derivatives:
The end of Chevron deference means cannabis and hemp businesses must rethink compliance and risk with agencies:
Despite the shake-up, some core consumer safety rules persist:
Critically, the patchwork between state and federal definitions of hemp and cannabinoids deepens—now with federal courts, not agencies, steering the ship.
Loper Bright brings opportunity—and risk. While regulatory agencies like the FDA and DEA will be less able to expand their reach through interpretation alone, the law is now in flux, with statutes, not guidance, as the touchstone for compliance.
Stay ahead of compliance and enforcement shifts with the latest analysis—and use CannabisRegulations.ai to customize your compliance protocols and licensing strategies as legal standards and regulatory risks evolve.
