July 22, 2026
On July 13, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick issued a preliminary injunction blocking Ohio from enforcing Senate Bill 56's intoxicating-hemp restrictions — but only against ten companies that make and distribute hemp-derived THC beverages. Attorney General Andy Wilson has asked the court to stay the ruling. Until a stay or an appeal resolves it, Ohio has a split hemp-beverage market: ten protected sellers, and everyone else.
SB 56, signed in March 2026, amended Ohio's voter-approved marijuana statute to prohibit intoxicating hemp products — including THC-infused beverages — outside the licensed dispensary system. Ten hemp-beverage companies sued in federal court, and in June won a temporary restraining order, as covered in our coverage of the SB 56 lawsuit filing. Judge Helmick's July 13 preliminary injunction extends that protection through trial: the state cannot enforce SB 56's hemp-beverage restrictions against the named plaintiffs while the case proceeds.
The winning theory so far is constitutional, not Farm Bill preemption alone. The court found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claim that SB 56 discriminates against out-of-state sellers in favor of Ohio's licensed in-state system — a dormant Commerce Clause problem — alongside their arguments that the 2018 Farm Bill protects hemp products that meet the federal definition.
Attorney General Wilson moved to stay the injunction, arguing it creates uncertainty across Ohio's marijuana and hemp markets. The court has not ruled on the motion. If a stay is granted, the plaintiffs lose their protection while the state appeals; if denied, expect the state to take the question to the Sixth Circuit.
The injunction is not a statewide green light. It covers the enforcement exposure of ten named companies — nothing else.
For retailers, that creates an unusual risk matrix. Carrying the plaintiff companies' beverages carries materially lower enforcement risk while the injunction stands. Carrying non-plaintiff hemp THC beverages remains restricted under SB 56, exactly as before July 13. A cooler stocked with two visually identical seltzers can hold one lawful product and one enforcement target, distinguished only by whose name is on the docket. Retailers should verify — in writing, from the distributor — whether a given brand is covered, and date-stamp that verification, because coverage evaporates if the injunction is stayed or reversed.
For brands outside the ten, the ruling is precedent, not protection. Joining the litigation, filing a parallel suit, or waiting are all counsel conversations, not defaults.
The dormant-Commerce-Clause theory that worked in Toledo travels well: Missouri hemp businesses filed a federal challenge to that state's HB 2641 the same week, and other states that carved hemp restrictions around their licensed marijuana systems present the same target profile.
Three dates matter. First, the stay ruling, which could come on any timeline the court chooses. Second, a probable Sixth Circuit appeal whichever way the stay goes. Third, the copycat docket, starting with Missouri. All of it plays out against the federal hemp recriminalization clock — the November 12 total-THC standard would reach most of these products regardless of what Ohio's courts do. The state fight determines the next four months, not the endgame.
Are THC drinks legal in Ohio right now?
Only products from the 10 plaintiff companies covered by the July 13 preliminary injunction can be sold free of SB 56 enforcement. All other intoxicating hemp beverages remain restricted. The AG has moved to stay the injunction — status can change quickly; talk to your counsel.
What is Ohio SB 56?
A March 2026 law amending Ohio's marijuana statute to prohibit intoxicating hemp products, including THC-infused beverages, outside the licensed marijuana system.
Why did the judge block enforcement?
The court found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on claims that SB 56 unconstitutionally favors in-state licensees over out-of-state competitors.
Does the injunction apply to all hemp products?
No — it covers only the 10 plaintiff companies' enforcement exposure. It is not a statewide green light.
This article is for general information and is not legal advice. Consult qualified counsel about your specific situation.
On July 13, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick issued a preliminary injunction blocking Ohio from enforcing Senate Bill 56's intoxicating-hemp restrictions — but only against ten companies that make and distribute hemp-derived THC beverages. Attorney General Andy Wilson has asked the court to stay the ruling. Until a stay or an appeal resolves it, Ohio has a split hemp-beverage market: ten protected sellers, and everyone else.
SB 56, signed in March 2026, amended Ohio's voter-approved marijuana statute to prohibit intoxicating hemp products — including THC-infused beverages — outside the licensed dispensary system. Ten hemp-beverage companies sued in federal court, and in June won a temporary restraining order, as covered in our coverage of the SB 56 lawsuit filing. Judge Helmick's July 13 preliminary injunction extends that protection through trial: the state cannot enforce SB 56's hemp-beverage restrictions against the named plaintiffs while the case proceeds.
The winning theory so far is constitutional, not Farm Bill preemption alone. The court found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claim that SB 56 discriminates against out-of-state sellers in favor of Ohio's licensed in-state system — a dormant Commerce Clause problem — alongside their arguments that the 2018 Farm Bill protects hemp products that meet the federal definition.
Attorney General Wilson moved to stay the injunction, arguing it creates uncertainty across Ohio's marijuana and hemp markets. The court has not ruled on the motion. If a stay is granted, the plaintiffs lose their protection while the state appeals; if denied, expect the state to take the question to the Sixth Circuit.
The injunction is not a statewide green light. It covers the enforcement exposure of ten named companies — nothing else.
For retailers, that creates an unusual risk matrix. Carrying the plaintiff companies' beverages carries materially lower enforcement risk while the injunction stands. Carrying non-plaintiff hemp THC beverages remains restricted under SB 56, exactly as before July 13. A cooler stocked with two visually identical seltzers can hold one lawful product and one enforcement target, distinguished only by whose name is on the docket. Retailers should verify — in writing, from the distributor — whether a given brand is covered, and date-stamp that verification, because coverage evaporates if the injunction is stayed or reversed.
For brands outside the ten, the ruling is precedent, not protection. Joining the litigation, filing a parallel suit, or waiting are all counsel conversations, not defaults.
The dormant-Commerce-Clause theory that worked in Toledo travels well: Missouri hemp businesses filed a federal challenge to that state's HB 2641 the same week, and other states that carved hemp restrictions around their licensed marijuana systems present the same target profile.
Three dates matter. First, the stay ruling, which could come on any timeline the court chooses. Second, a probable Sixth Circuit appeal whichever way the stay goes. Third, the copycat docket, starting with Missouri. All of it plays out against the federal hemp recriminalization clock — the November 12 total-THC standard would reach most of these products regardless of what Ohio's courts do. The state fight determines the next four months, not the endgame.
Are THC drinks legal in Ohio right now?
Only products from the 10 plaintiff companies covered by the July 13 preliminary injunction can be sold free of SB 56 enforcement. All other intoxicating hemp beverages remain restricted. The AG has moved to stay the injunction — status can change quickly; talk to your counsel.
What is Ohio SB 56?
A March 2026 law amending Ohio's marijuana statute to prohibit intoxicating hemp products, including THC-infused beverages, outside the licensed marijuana system.
Why did the judge block enforcement?
The court found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on claims that SB 56 unconstitutionally favors in-state licensees over out-of-state competitors.
Does the injunction apply to all hemp products?
No — it covers only the 10 plaintiff companies' enforcement exposure. It is not a statewide green light.
This article is for general information and is not legal advice. Consult qualified counsel about your specific situation.
