Hemp Retailers Face Setback as Maryland Appellate Court Reinstates Product Restrictions

Hagerstown, MD – A recent ruling by the Appellate Court of Maryland has reinstated restrictions on the sale of certain hemp-derived products, potentially impacting hundreds of small businesses across the state. The decision, issued on September 9, 2025, in the case of Moore v. Maryland Hemp Coalition, reverses a preliminary injunction that had previously allowed these businesses to continue operating while legal challenges were ongoing. The court’s order means that hemp-derived items, including THCA-rich flower and cannabinoids like delta-8 and delta-10, are now deemed illegal without a cannabis license.

The Appellate Court determined that the restrictions outlined in the Cannabis Reform Act are enforceable. This ruling effectively categorizes these hemp-derived products as falling outside the permissible scope of hemp legislation, particularly concerning their cannabinoid content. The court’s opinion stated that there is no established right to sell psychoactive hemp-derived products, citing federal laws and Maryland’s specific hemp statutes, which primarily authorize agricultural hemp rather than its psychoactive derivatives. Furthermore, the court noted that while a 2022 Maryland law prohibits sales to individuals under 21, this does not confer a right to sell to adults. The opinion also addressed the argument of lax enforcement, asserting that it does not legitimize an illegal market, and that the prohibition of these products does not impede lawful trade.

The preliminary injunction that had temporarily allowed hemp retailers to sell these products was issued by a circuit court. This injunction had barred the enforcement of specific sections of the Alcoholic Beverages and Cannabis Article for businesses that were selling hemp-derived products prior to July 1, 2023. However, the appellate court found that the Maryland Hemp Coalition was unlikely to prevail on the merits of its constitutional claims. Consequently, the appellate judges reversed the injunction, finding that the balance of convenience and public interest favored the State, thereby allowing for the enforcement of licensing and product restrictions. The court also affirmed the State’s authority to continue issuing cannabis licenses, reinforcing the requirement that businesses must possess a valid cannabis license to sell products containing psychoactive cannabinoids.

Following the Appellate Court’s decision, the Maryland Hemp Coalition and affiliated businesses have a 30-day window, as per Maryland Rule 8-606(b)(1), before the court clerk ordinarily issues a mandate. This period provides an opportunity to seek further legal recourse. During this time, the Coalition plans to file a motion to continue the injunction pending appeal and to petition the Supreme Court of Maryland for review. The coalition has previously argued that an immediate issuance of the mandate could lead to the closure of hundreds, if not thousands, of hemp retailers. They intend to utilize this window to pursue emergency relief. Additionally, Maryland’s appellate rules allow for a petition for a writ of certiorari within fifteen days after the mandate is issued, suggesting the legal battle could extend beyond the initial 30-day period.

From an industry perspective, Matthew “Levi” Sellers, president of the Maryland Hemp Coalition and managing member of South Mountain Micro Farm, highlighted the potential ramifications of the ruling. He submitted an affidavit explaining that numerous brick-and-mortar hemp retailers across Maryland, as well as out-of-state online vendors, rely on products sourced from distributors that provide certificates of analysis from DEA-approved laboratories. Sellers pointed out that licensed cannabis dispensaries obtain the same products from the same sources. He further emphasized that there have been no documented public health incidents linked to hemp products in the nearly two years since the preliminary injunction was in place, and that the State has not presented evidence of harm. Sellers also contended that Maryland’s “seed-to-sale” tracking system creates inconsistencies, as licensed dispensaries can integrate hemp products into the METRC system while hemp retailers cannot.

The State’s argument for immediate enforcement of the Cannabis Reform Act is based on protecting public health. However, Sellers contested this, arguing that hemp retailers and licensed dispensaries sell identical products, and that the more potent cannabis products sold in dispensaries are not demonstrably safer. He also noted that many consumers choose local hemp retailers for convenience and affordability. Sellers warned that if these local stores are forced to close, consumers will likely turn to online purchases, where Maryland has not actively enforced its restrictions. He cautioned that small retailers may not be able to withstand even a brief disruption, potentially jeopardizing hundreds of businesses and thousands of jobs.

Businesses like Simple Pleasures, a family-owned purveyor of hemp-derived products, expressed deep concern over the ruling’s impact on Maryland’s hemp industry. They maintain a commitment to providing safe, lab-tested products to adults seeking alternatives to traditional cannabis. The closure of hundreds of small businesses while licensed cannabis dispensaries continue to sell similar products, according to Simple Pleasures, does not enhance safety and could devastate the local economy. The company stands with the Maryland Hemp Coalition in its pursuit of further legal review and a stay of the mandate. They are committed to advocating for fair regulations for hemp products and the right of adults to access them, urging customers and supporters to stay informed, contact their elected officials, and support businesses working to navigate evolving regulations.

Article by Ken Buckler, based upon information from Simple Pleasures and Moore v. Maryland Hemp Coalition.

DISCLOSURE: The author of this article regularly uses Simple Pleasures products to treat his COVID-19 vaccine injury, and is personally affected by the outcome of this case. Radio Free Hub City filed a request regarding the financial disclosure forms of the judges involved in the decision to examine for any ties to the cannabis industry, but those records were not readily available.

---