Texas hemp industry braces for crucial April 23 hearing

The legal battle over the future of smokable THC in Texas reaches a critical crossroads this Thursday. As the April 24 expiration date for the current Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) looms, all eyes are on the Travis County District Court for a high-stakes hearing that could decide whether thousands of businesses remain open or are forced to clear their shelves.

The April 23 hearing: What’s at stake

On Thursday, April 23, Judge Maya Guerra Gamble will hear arguments to determine if the temporary block on the state’s hemp ban should be extended into a more permanent temporary injunction.

While the previous TRO provided a 14-day "breathing room" for retailers, this hearing will address the core of the industry's survival, specifically:

• The "Total THC" Rule: The court will weigh whether the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) overstepped its authority by redefining the 0.3% THC limit to include THCA, a change that effectively outlawed raw hemp flower and pre-rolls.
• Licensing Fee Hikes: Industry leaders are fighting to block massive fee increases—some jumping from $250 to $10,000 per facility—which they argue is an "unconstitutional occupation tax" designed to bankrupt smaller vendors.
• Interstate Commerce: The hearing will also revisit whether the state can legally block Texas businesses from selling and transporting smokable hemp to customers outside state lines.

Industry on Edge

Advocates argue that if the judge does not grant the injunction, the resulting "regulatory whiplash" will be catastrophic.

What they're saying:

"We are looking at a $5.5 billion industry being dismantled by a pen stroke rather than a vote in the Legislature," says Brian Swensen, Executive Director of Hemp Industry & Farmers of America. "Thursday is about whether the state has to follow its own laws."

The State’s Defense

Attorneys for the state are expected to maintain that the "Total THC" standard is necessary for public safety and aligns with evolving federal guidelines. They argue that THCA is essentially "marijuana in waiting," as it converts to Delta-9 THC when heated, and that the state has the right to regulate intoxicating substances regardless of their botanical origin.