Virginia Hemp Businesses Seek Emergency Injunction to Protect Virginia Jobs, Farmers, Consumers, and Small Businesses

This article summarizes and builds upon reporting by The Outlaw Report ("Virginia hemp files federal lawsuit against state over budget bill's ban," Aug. 2, 2026) and RVA Magazine ("Virginia Hemp Businesses Sue, Claim New THC Law Wipes Out Millions in Investments," by R. Anthony Harris, Aug. 1, 2026). We encourage readers to support both publications by reading their original reporting.

Click Here to View Full Complaint

A Regulated Industry Built by Virginia

In 2023, Virginia enacted Senate Bill 903 (SB 903), creating one of the nation's most comprehensive regulatory frameworks for hemp-derived products intended for human consumption. At the same time, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) established an Office of Hemp Enforcement, requiring licensed businesses to comply with extensive regulations governing registration, laboratory testing, labeling, packaging, product safety, manufacturing standards, age restrictions, and retail compliance.

One of SB 903's defining features was Virginia's 25:1 CBD-to-THC provision.

Under that framework, hemp products remained legal if they contained no more than 0.3% total THC and maintained at least 25 parts CBD for every one part THC, even when the total THC exceeded two milligrams per package. The 25:1 standard became the foundation of Virginia's regulated hemp marketplace and gave businesses confidence that if they followed the law, invested responsibly, and complied with rigorous state oversight, they could continue to operate.

Over the next three years, Virginia's hemp industry grew around that framework.

Farmers committed additional acreage to hemp production knowing there would be a legal market for their crops. Manufacturers invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in extraction equipment, commercial kitchens, beverage canning lines, laboratories, and processing facilities. Retailers expanded storefronts, hired employees, signed multi-year commercial leases, and developed relationships with wholesalers and distributors throughout the Commonwealth.

Companies spent years formulating products specifically to meet Virginia's 25:1 requirements. They invested in laboratory testing, child-resistant packaging, compliant labeling, regulatory registrations, quality assurance programs, and inventory built around the standards Virginia itself created. Many secured financing, entered long-term supply contracts, and expanded their operations based on a regulatory framework they believed would remain stable.

These were not speculative investments—they were business decisions made in reliance on a state-created regulatory system.

A New Administration, A New Direction

Following Governor Abigail Spanberger's inauguration in January 2026, lawmakers renewed efforts to establish Virginia's long-awaited adult-use cannabis marketplace.

While separate marijuana legislation stalled during the General Assembly session, many hemp operators say they were repeatedly assured that the existing hemp framework established under SB 903 would remain intact.

According to the plaintiffs, those assurances changed during budget negotiations.

Rather than passing standalone legislation affecting hemp, the General Assembly included sweeping changes to hemp law within House Bill 30, Virginia's biennial budget.

Among those changes was the elimination of the very provision that had become the cornerstone of Virginia's hemp market—the 25:1 CBD-to-THC exception.

The Rule That Changed Everything

As first reported by The Outlaw Report and RVA Magazine, licensed hemp businesses were notified by VDACS on July 6, 2026, that the 25:1 provision had been eliminated.

Beginning August 15, 2026, virtually every hemp product intended for human consumption must contain no more than two milligrams of total THC per package, regardless of how much CBD it contains.

According to the lawsuit, that single statutory change immediately transforms the overwhelming majority of products that had been lawfully manufactured and sold under SB 903 into prohibited products.

The plaintiffs argue they were given approximately forty days to accomplish what would normally require many months—or longer:

• Reformulate product lines

• Complete new laboratory testing

• Redesign packaging

• Order new compliant inventory

• Renegotiate manufacturing and supplier contracts

• Liquidate existing inventory

• Rebuild entire product portfolios

  
  

In a sworn affidavit attached to the complaint, NOVA Hemp founder Travis Lane summarized the challenge:

"Forty days is not sufficient time for NOVA Hemp to reformulate its product lines, requalify new formulations, redesign and reorder compliant packaging, renegotiate manufacturing and supply contracts, and obtain any new licensing that compliance with HB 30 would require."

Plaintiffs Call the New Standard Arbitrary

One of the complaint's principal arguments concerns how the Commonwealth measures compliance.

Rather than regulating THC concentration, Virginia now limits the total amount of THC contained within an entire package.

As the lawsuit illustrates:

• A one-ounce tincture containing 1.9 mg of THC remains legal.

• A twelve-ounce beverage containing 2.1 mg of THC becomes illegal.

The plaintiffs argue that distinction bears little relationship to public safety.

As stated in the complaint:

"A metric that permits the more concentrated product while criminalizing the more diluted one is not a public-safety line; it is an arbitrary one."

Millions of Dollars—and Local Jobs—At Risk

The complaint details substantial projected losses across the seven plaintiff businesses.

Among them:

• Northern Virginia Hemp & Agriculture (NOVA Hemp) estimates approximately $735,000 in inventory will become unsellable, with roughly 85% of its product portfolio eliminated. The company also reports losing a statewide distribution partnership with Total Wine and a beverage manufacturing collaboration with Redfern Hemp.

• Cypress Hemp estimates approximately $1.43 million in inventory will become noncompliant, affecting products responsible for nearly 95% of its annual Virginia revenue.

• Redfern Hemp Co. and Redfern Market estimate approximately $270,000 in inventory will become unsellable while already experiencing more than $75,000 per month in canceled wholesale business.

• Pure Shenandoah projects more than $250,000 in inventory losses and estimates over $2 million in lost business opportunities this year.

• Kultivate Wellness reports nearly 98% of its retail inventory will become noncompliant.

• District Hemp Botanicals says it has already begun laying off employees and anticipates lease cancellations, mounting liabilities, and possible bankruptcy.

Collectively, the plaintiffs argue the law threatens millions of dollars in investments made under Virginia's previous regulatory framework.

Constitutional Claims behind Hemp Injunction

Represented by former Virginia Senator Chap Petersen, the plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction while the constitutional challenge proceeds.

The lawsuit raises three primary claims:

• Unconstitutional Taking under the Fifth Amendment and the Virginia Constitution by eliminating the economic value of lawfully acquired property without compensation.

• Procedural and Substantive Due Process violations based on the abrupt implementation timeline and lack of meaningful opportunity to adapt.

• Equal Protection concerns arising from different treatment between hemp products and products expected to be sold through Virginia's future licensed adult-use cannabis market.

More Than a Legal Challenge

The plaintiffs maintain this lawsuit is ultimately about protecting legitimate Virginia businesses and halting any devastating impacts that transpired following the rules the Commonwealth established.

For years, Virginia encouraged entrepreneurs to build farms, processing facilities, manufacturing operations, retail stores, and distribution networks under the framework established by SB 903. According to the complaint, the budget amendments now threaten to dismantle that homegrown ecosystem months before a new retail marijuana market is scheduled to begin.

As the court considers whether to issue an emergency injunction before the August 15 enforcement deadline, the outcome could determine not only the future of seven plaintiff businesses, but also the future of Virginia's independent hemp industry, the consumers it serves, and the local supply chain that has been built over nearly a decade.

Relief Sought

Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendant, and grant the following relief:

I. Declare that the new Hemp Prohibition and its accompanying statutory amendment

are a regulatory taking lacking sufficient public use and/or were adopted in violation

of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution;

II. Declare that the new Hemp Prohibition violates the Equal Protection Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment and/or the Due Process Clause of the United States

Constitution;

III. Award temporary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants and all those

similarly situated from enforcing the 2 mg THC per-package cap against Plaintiffs or

those similarly situated (alternately enjoin Defendants and all those similarly situated

from pursuing all civil and criminal remedies or penalties for all hemp products that

meet the 25-to-1 exception that was codified in Virginia Law prior to the passage of

HB30 in 2026).

IV. Enjoin each Defendant, along with its officers, agents, and employees, from enforcing

or taking any administrative, civil, or penal actions pursuant to the Hemp Prohibitions

or any ordinances passed thereunder until further order of this Court;

V. Award Plaintiffs damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in an amount to be

determined at trial;

VI. Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, and taxable court

costs incurred in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b);

VII. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Best-case scenario: The industry receives a temporary retraining order and injunction, halting enforcement against the new hemp definition. If the Judge decides that the plaintiffs have a takings and due process case but does not grant the injunction, it will pave the way for other business owners to seek damages due to the irresponsible passage of this bill.