throbber
Case 1:20-cv-02921-JEB Document 33 Filed 03/02/21 Page 1 of 53
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`HEMP INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION; and
`RE BOTANICALS, INC.
` Plaintiffs,
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT
`ADMINISTRATION and TIMOTHY SHEA,
`in his Official Capacity,
` Defendants.
`










`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-2921 (JEB)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM AND POINTS OF AUTHORITIES
`IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02921-JEB Document 33 Filed 03/02/21 Page 2 of 53
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 3
`I.
`Statutory and Regulatory History. ...................................................................................... 3
`II.
`The 2014 Farm Bill. ............................................................................................................ 5
`III.
`The 2018 Farm Bill. ............................................................................................................ 7
`IV.
`The Contemporary Hemp Market. ...................................................................................... 9
`V.
`DEA’s Recent Hemp Related Activities. ............................................................................ 9
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 12
`This Case is About Whether the 2018 Farm Bill Authorizes the Manufacture and
`I.
`Possession of In-Process Hemp Materials. ....................................................................... 12
`A.
`Plaintiffs’ Statutory Challenge. ............................................................................. 12
`B.
`Plaintiffs Are Not Challenging the IFR. ............................................................... 14
`This Court Has Federal Question Jurisdiction. ................................................................. 18
`A.
`Thunder Basin Does Not Apply. ........................................................................... 18
`Plaintiffs’ structural claim falls outside of the administrative review
`1.
`scheme....................................................................................................... 19
`Plaintiffs’ challenge based on the 2018 Farm Bill does not belong in the
`CSA’s administrative review scheme. ...................................................... 21
`TRAC Does Not Apply.......................................................................................... 24
`No Court Has Held That § 877 Abolishes Federal Question Jurisdiction to Decide
`Any Federal Question Related to the CSA or DEA. ............................................. 26
`If this Court Concludes Plaintiffs Are Challenging Agency Action, Then
`Leedom Jurisdiction is Proper. .............................................................................. 33
`Plaintiffs’ Claim is Fit for Review. ................................................................................... 37
`A.
`Plaintiffs Have Standing. ...................................................................................... 37
`B.
`Plaintiffs’ Claim is Ripe........................................................................................ 38
`C.
`The Court Should Not Decline Jurisdiction Based in Equity. .............................. 40
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 45
`
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`2.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02921-JEB Document 33 Filed 03/02/21 Page 3 of 53
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Bohon v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n,
`2020 WL 2198050 (D.D.C. May 6, 2020) ................................................................................. 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`
`Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA,
`568 U.S. 398 (2013) .................................................................................................................. 37
`
`
`Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC v. Billing,
`551 U.S. 264 (2007) .................................................................................................................. 13
`
`
`Elk Run Coal Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor,
`804 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2011) ......................................................................................... 19, 21
`
`
`FiberLight, LLC v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp.,
`81 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D.D.C. 2015) ............................................................................................... 40
`
`
`Flynt v. LFP, Inc.,
`245 F. Supp. 2d 94 (D.D.C. 2003) ............................................................................................. 44
`
`
`*Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd.,
`561 U.S. 477 (2010) ........................................................................................................... Passim
`
`
`General Elec. Co. v. EPA,
`360 F.3d 188 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................... 20
`
`
`Glenn v. Thomas Fortune Fay,
`222 F. Supp. 3d 31 (D.D.C. 2016) ............................................................................................. 41
`
`
`Gonzales v. Oregon,
`546 U.S. 243 (2006) .................................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`Griffith v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth.,
`842 F.2d 487 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ................................................................................................... 34
`
`
`Hemp Indus. Ass’n v. DEA,
`357 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................. 4, 5
`
`
`Hemp Indus. Ass’n v. DEA,
`333 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................. 3, 5
`
`
`In re Bluewater Network,
`234 F.3d 1305 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................. 24
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02921-JEB Document 33 Filed 03/02/21 Page 4 of 53
`
`Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor,
`358 F.3d 40 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................................... 24
`
`
`Jarkesy v. S.E.C.,
`803 F.3d 9 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................. 19, 23
`
`
`John Doe, Inc. v. DEA,
`484 F.3d 561 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................. 27, 30
`
`
`Leedom v. Kyne,
`358 U.S. 184 (1958) ............................................................................................................ 33, 35
`
`
`Mapes v. Reed,
`2020 WL 5545397 (D.D.C. Sept. 16, 2020) .............................................................................. 34
`
`
`MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`549 U.S. 118 (2007) ............................................................................................................ 22, 37
`
`
`Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. DEA,
`190 F. Supp. 3d 843 (E.D. Wis. 2016) ................................................................................ 21, 32
`
`
`*Monson v. DEA,
`589 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2009) .............................................................................................. Passim
`
`
`Moore v. U.S. House of Representatives,
`733 F.2d 946 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ................................................................................................... 44
`
`
`*Morgan Drexen, Inc. v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau,
`979 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D.D.C. 2013) ........................................................................................... 41
`
`
`*N.H. Hemp Council, Inc. v. Marshall,
`203 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................... Passim
`
`
`Nat’l Air Traffic Controllers Ass’n AFL–CIO v. Fed. Serv. Impasses Panel,
`437 F.3d 1256 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................. 34
`
`
`New Hampshire Lottery Comm’n v. Rosen,
`986 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2021) ........................................................................................................ 37
`
`
`North v. Smarsh, Inc.,
`160 F. Supp. 3d 63 (D.D.C. 2015) ............................................................................................. 25
`
`
`*Novelty Distributors, Inc. v. Leonhart,
`562 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2008) ....................................................................................... 30, 31
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02921-JEB Document 33 Filed 03/02/21 Page 5 of 53
`
`Nyunt v. Chairman, Broad. Bd. of Governors,
`589 F.3d 445 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................... 34
`
` Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. Ashcroft,
`282 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (D.N.M. 2002) ........................................................................................ 32
`
` O
`
`
`Oestereich v. Selective Serv. Sys. Local Bd. No. 11, Cheyenne, Wyo.,
`393 U.S. 233 (1968) .................................................................................................................. 36
`
`Oregon v. Ashcroft,
`368 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................... 16
`
`
`Oregon v. Ashcroft,
`192 F.Supp.2d 1077 (2002) ................................................................................................. 16, 17
`
`
`Pub. Affairs Assocs., Inc. v. Rickover,
`369 U.S. 111 (1962) .................................................................................................................. 40
`
`
`Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus,
`573 U.S. 149 (2014) .................................................................................................................. 37
`
`
`Swish Marketing, Inc. v. F.T.C.,
`669 F. Supp. 2d 72 (D.D.C. 2009) ....................................................................................... 42, 43
`
`
`Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. FCC,
`750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ..................................................................................................... 24
`
`
`Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich,
`510 U.S. 200 (1994) .................................................................................................................. 19
`
`
`Tilton v. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n,
`824 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................ 22, 23
`
`
`Time Warner Entm’t Co. v. FCC.,
`93 F.3d 957 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ..................................................................................................... 26
`
`
`Toilet Goods Association v. Gardner,
`387 U.S. 158 (1967) .................................................................................................................. 40
`
`
`Ukiah Adventist Hosp. v. FTC,
`981 F.2d 543 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ................................................................................................... 26
`
`
`*United States v. Mallory,
`372 F. Supp. 3d 377 (S.D.W. Va. 2019) ............................................................................. Passim
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02921-JEB Document 33 Filed 03/02/21 Page 6 of 53
`
`United States v. Safehouse,
`408 F. Supp. 3d 583 (E.D. Pa. 2019) ......................................................................................... 32
`
`
`United States v. Safehouse,
`2021 WL 97622 (3d Cir. Jan. 12, 2021) .................................................................................... 31
`
`
`United States v. White Plume,
`447 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2006) ............................................................................................... 5, 32
`
`
`Wedgewood Vill. Pharmacy v. DEA,
`509 F.3d 541 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`Statutes
`
` 5
`
` 7
`
` U.S.C. § 706 ................................................................................................................................. 1
`
` U.S.C. § 1639o ............................................................................................................. 1, 8, 35, 36
`
`
`*7 U.S.C. § 1639r .................................................................................................................. Passim
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` 7
`
` U.S.C. § 5940(a)(2) .................................................................................................................. 6, 7
`
` U.S.C. § 5940(b) .......................................................................................................................... 5
`
` U.S.C. § 5940(b)(2) ................................................................................................................... 33
`
`
`21 U.S.C. § 802(16)(B)(ii) .............................................................................................................. 4
`
`21 U.S.C. § 824(d) ........................................................................................................................ 31
`
`21 U.S.C. § 841(a) ........................................................................................................................ 14
`
`21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2) .................................................................................................................... 32
`
`*21 U.S.C. § 877 .................................................................................................................... Passim
`
`*21 U.S.C. § 882 .................................................................................................................... Passim
`
`21 U.S.C. §§ 822, 823, 841(a) ........................................................................................................ 4
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 ........................................................................................................................... 27
`
`50 U.S.C. § 456(g) ........................................................................................................................ 36
`
`Pub. L. No. 114-113, § 763, 129 Stat. 2242, 2285 (2015) .............................................................. 6
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02921-JEB Document 33 Filed 03/02/21 Page 7 of 53
`
`Pub. L. No. 115-31, § 773, 131 Stat. 135, 182 (2017) .................................................................... 6
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(i) ...................................................................................................................... 45
`
`Regulations
`
`Establishment of a Domestic Hemp Production Program,
`84 Fed. Reg. 58522 (Oct. 31, 2019) ............................................................................................ 9
`
`
`Establishment of a Domestic Hemp Production Program,
`86 Fed. Reg. 5596 (Jan. 19, 2021) ............................................................................................. 11
`
`
`Implementation of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018,
`85 Fed. Reg. 51639 (Aug. 21, 2020) .................................................................................. 10, 15
`
`
`Statement of Principles on Industrial Hemp,
`81 Fed. Reg. 53395 (Aug. 12, 2016) ........................................................................................... 7
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`10B Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure §§ 2759, 2763 (4th ed.) ....... 42, 44
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02921-JEB Document 33 Filed 03/02/21 Page 8 of 53
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`(b) Authority. Subject to subsection (c)(3)(B), the Secretary [of Agriculture] shall
`have sole authority to promulgate Federal regulations and guidelines that relate to
`the production of hemp, including Federal regulations and guidelines that relate to
`the implementation of sections 1639p and 1639q of this title.
`
`This case turns on the above statutory subsection, 7 U.S.C. § 1639r(b)—a provision the
`
`Government never cites in its Motion. Plaintiffs contend this provision from the Agricultural
`
`Improvement Act of 2018 (“2018 Farm Bill”), together with the 2018 Farm Bill’s broad definition
`
`of “hemp” in 7 U.S.C. § 1639o and removal of hemp from the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”),
`
`establishes an immunity or authorization that permits the manufacture and possession of two
`
`in-process hemp byproducts made during the production of hemp. That immunity is a critical
`
`component of the 2018 Farm Bill. But over the past several months, DEA has disregarded this
`
`immunity both in its statements and conduct. Plaintiffs ask this Court for a judicial determination
`
`confirming the immunity.
`
`The Government has a different view of the case. It says “[t]his action challenges an interim
`
`final rule that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has issued regarding hemp.” Mot. 1.
`
`It is a curious take. Plaintiffs do not request relief in this action consistent with a rule challenge;
`
`the operative pleading never mentions 5 U.S.C. § 706 or the Administrative Procedure Act
`
`(“APA”); and a ruling from this Court on whether an immunity applies to in-process hemp
`
`materials will neither sustain nor invalidate DEA’s interim final rule (“IFR”) in any way. In fact,
`
`the rule Plaintiffs are supposedly challenging does not discuss in-process hemp materials at all. At
`
`most, a ruling in this case would prevent enforcement of the CSA, not the IFR, in a specific,
`
`concrete context.
`
`To be sure, Plaintiffs discuss the IFR in their amended complaint. But that is because it is
`
`a prominent symptom of the deeper structural issue: despite an unambiguous prohibition in the
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02921-JEB Document 33 Filed 03/02/21 Page 9 of 53
`
`2018 Farm Bill, DEA asserts and has acted as if it has the authority to regulate the production of
`
`hemp and hemp derivatives. That does not make the IFR the object of Plaintiffs’ challenge, but it
`
`illustrates why this case is ripe and jurisdiction is proper.
`
`The Government’s redrafting of Plaintiffs’ cause of action to obtain a jurisdictional
`
`dismissal is unfortunate, but hardly a surprise. As discussed below, DEA has for decades tried to
`
`expand its regulatory authority to regulate non-psychoactive hemp, and in so doing, the agency
`
`has been rebuked by both the courts and Congress. At this juncture, DEA’s best bet is to deny the
`
`hemp industry a statutory immunity and assert authority where it has none is to play jurisdictional
`
`keep away. To this end, the Motion makes four arguments for dismissal. None has merit.
`
`First, it argues that the CSA’s review scheme makes the court of appeals the exclusive
`
`forum for the claim Plaintiffs raise. But Plaintiffs do not challenge the IFR in this case, and the
`
`scheme evinces no intent to preclude judicial review of Plaintiffs’ precise declaratory judgment
`
`non-liability claim. On the contrary, 21 U.S.C. § 882 indicates Congress wanted this type of claim
`
`in district court. The Motion also argues that TRAC bars this action because resolving Plaintiffs’
`
`claim might affect the circuit court’s future jurisdiction. But the outcome of this case can have no
`
`bearing on the appellate court’s jurisdiction to hear the IFR challenge or any other administrative
`
`proceeding.
`
`Second, the Motion argues that Plaintiffs do not have standing because they have not
`
`suffered injury. But Plaintiffs have numerous Article III injuries, including fear of prosecution or
`
`civil enforcement actions based on true life experiences, not conjecture, in addition to tangible
`
`economic harm, such as the reduction of operations and investment. Fundamentally, DEA’s
`
`current position forces Plaintiff Hemp Industries Association’s (“HIA”) members and Plaintiff RE
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02921-JEB Document 33 Filed 03/02/21 Page 10 of 53
`
`Botanicals to choose among registering with DEA, risking an enforcement action, or halting
`
`essential parts of their operations.
`
`Third, the Motion argues that the dispute is not ripe. Yet its rhetoric belies that very claim.
`
`It asks this Court to abstain so DEA can apply its expertise and create policy regulating hemp
`
`production—the very conduct Congress forbade. The merits turn on a pure, abstract question of
`
`statutory interpretation and how the 2018 Farm Bill interacts with the CSA. This claim is fit for
`
`judicial resolution now.
`
`Finally, the Government says the Court should exercise its equitable discretion to decline
`
`declaratory judgment jurisdiction “so that Plaintiffs’ claims may be resolved in the pending action
`
`before the D.C. Circuit.” Mot. 23. But Plaintiffs’ D.C. Circuit action does not address the claim
`
`raised in this Court, and relief in the D.C. Circuit would not vindicate the statutory immunity
`
`Plaintiffs urge here. This case presents questions of law that this Court can and should resolve
`
`swiftly and efficiently.
`
`I.
`
`Statutory and Regulatory History.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`For as long as Congress has regulated the plant Cannabis sativa L. (cannabis) and related
`
`psychoactive substances, it has attempted to distinguish between psychoactive cannabis with high-
`
`levels of THC (marijuana), and non-psychoactive cannabis with low-levels of THC (hemp).
`
`Congress first regulated cannabis through the 1937 “Marihuana Tax Act” (“MTA”). 50
`
`Stat. 551. Although the MTA required all growers, sellers, manufacturers, importers, and
`
`distributors of marijuana to register with the U.S. Department of Treasury, the statute carved out
`
`the non-psychoactive parts of the cannabis plant, such as hemp seed and oil, from the MTA’s
`
`reach. Hemp Indus. Ass’n v. DEA, 333 F.3d 1082, 1089 (9th Cir. 2003) (“HIA I”). At the time,
`
`technological limitations prevented differentiating between hemp and marijuana variants directly
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02921-JEB Document 33 Filed 03/02/21 Page 11 of 53
`
`according to THC levels, as we do today. Accordingly, although the MTA did not prohibit hemp
`
`cultivation, its restrictions and technological limitations caused domestic hemp production to
`
`effectively disappear. See First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶ 20.
`
`In 1970, Congress enacted the CSA as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention
`
`and Control Act of 1970. See Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 250 (2006) (discussing legislative
`
`history). The CSA creates a comprehensive, closed regulatory regime that criminalizes the
`
`unauthorized manufacture, distribution, and possession of substances classified in any of its
`
`schedules. Id; see also 21 U.S.C. §§ 822, 823, 841(a). In this closed system, manufacturers and
`
`handlers of controlled substances must register with DEA to become a part of the legitimate
`
`distribution chain. See Wedgewood Vill. Pharmacy v. DEA, 509 F.3d 541, 542 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
`
`Like the MTA, the CSA’s definition of marijuana excluded the non-psychoactive portions
`
`of the plant. See 21 U.S.C. § 802(16)(B)(ii); Hemp Indus. Ass’n v. DEA, 357 F.3d 1012, 1014 (9th
`
`Cir. 2004) (“HIA II”). “Congress knew what it was doing” in the CSA and “its intent to exclude
`
`non-psychoactive hemp from regulation is entirely clear.” Id. at 1018; see also id. (“Congress was
`
`aware of the presence of trace amounts of psychoactive agents (later identified as THC) in the resin
`
`of non-psychoactive hemp when it passed the 1937 ’Marihuana Tax Act,’ and when it adopted the
`
`Tax Act marijuana definition in the CSA.”).
`
`Although the CSA effectively banned hemp cultivation, it did not prohibit the importation,
`
`sale, and consumption of cannabis products made from excluded parts of the plant, such as the
`
`mature stalks. But as these legal hemp products grew in popularity in the late 1990s, DEA
`
`unlawfully attempted to impose a ban on THC occurring naturally within these legal products. See
`
`generally HIA II, 357 F.3d at 1015-18. Bypassing notice-and-comment, DEA issued a rule in
`
`October 2001 purporting to interpret the CSA and DEA regulations to ban all naturally occurring
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02921-JEB Document 33 Filed 03/02/21 Page 12 of 53
`
`THC. HIA I, 333 F.3d at 1085. The Ninth Circuit invalidated the rule, concluding that DEA had
`
`attempted “to evade the time-consuming procedures of the APA by interpreting an existing
`
`regulation to cover naturally-occurring THC, which was consciously omitted from the scope of
`
`the current regulation.” Id. at 1091. “[T]o properly bring organic THC under the listing of THC,”
`
`the court explained, “DEA must promulgate a legislative rule in accordance with the APA.” Id.
`
`Thereafter, following notice-and-comment, DEA issued a final rule banning organic THC. But the
`
`Ninth Circuit enjoined that rule because it was contrary to Congress’ unambiguous intent to
`
`exclude non-psychoactive parts of cannabis from the CSA. HIA II, 357 F.3d 1017-18.
`
`II.
`
`The 2014 Farm Bill.
`
`The popularity of hemp products continued to grow in the early 2000s. Notwithstanding
`
`federal law, several states passed laws permitting hemp cultivation subject to certain parameters.
`
`For example, in 1999, North Dakota legalized the hemp cultivation by licensed and registered
`
`farmers. Kramer Decl. Ex. A at 17. Montana legalized hemp cultivation in 2001, and several other
`
`states, including Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, and West Virginia, adopted hemp
`
`cultivation and research programs in the early 2000s. Id. These laws gave rise to numerous disputes
`
`between hemp cultivators and DEA regarding whether the CSA encompassed non-psychoactive
`
`hemp. See, e.g., N.H. Hemp Council, Inc. v. Marshall, 203 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2000); United States
`
`v. White Plume, 447 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2006); Monson v. DEA, 589 F.3d 952, 957 (8th Cir. 2009).
`
`Each time DEA took the position that hemp cultivation was unauthorized under the CSA, and each
`
`time the agency prevailed.
`
`Then, in 2014, Congress changed federal law. As part of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (the
`
`“2014 Farm Bill”), Congress authorized hemp cultivation without DEA interference under certain
`
`conditions. Through the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress authorized the domestic cultivation and
`
`marketing of industrial hemp as part of an agricultural pilot program or for research purposes. 7
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02921-JEB Document 33 Filed 03/02/21 Page 13 of 53
`
`U.S.C. § 5940(b). The 2014 Farm Bill also provided a more expansive definition of hemp
`
`compared to the 1937 MTA language by distinguishing psychoactive marijuana from non-
`
`psychoactive cannabis based on THC content. The 2014 Farm Bill defines “industrial hemp” as
`
`“the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9
`
`tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.” 7 U.S.C.
`
`§ 5940(a)(2).
`
`Conflicts among DEA, Congress, and the hemp industry persisted. See United States v.
`
`Mallory, 372 F. Supp. 3d 377, 382 (S.D.W. Va. 2019). For example, in May 2014, DEA seized
`
`hemp seeds destined for use by farmers who complied with a pilot program administered by the
`
`Kentucky Department of Agriculture (“KDA”). Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and
`
`Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY), both of whom participated in the drafting of the 2014
`
`Farm Bill, called these actions “an outrage” and “ridiculous,” and the KDA similarly commented
`
`that the “DEA is trying to place…illegal restrictions on Kentucky…restrictions on the program
`
`that Congress doesn’t allow.” Kramer Decl. Ex. B.
`
`Congress turned to the power of the purse. In a 2016 appropriations rider, it barred the use
`
`of funds “to prohibit the transportation, processing, sale, or use of industrial hemp that is grown or
`
`cultivated in accordance with subsection section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, within or
`
`outside the State in which the industrial hemp is grown or cultivated.” See Mallory, 372 F. Supp.
`
`3d at 382 (quoting Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, § 763, 129
`
`Stat. 2242, 2285 (2015)). It renewed the rider in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017. Id.
`
`(citing Pub. L. No. 115-31, § 773, 131 Stat. 135, 182 (2017)). And in the 2018 Consolidated
`
`Appropriations Act, it expanded the prohibition, adding the phrase “or seeds of such plant.” See
`
`id. “[T]his language was included in the Spending Bills to clear up any doubt that Congress did
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02921-JEB Document 33 Filed 03/02/21 Page 14 of 53
`
`not want these enforcement agencies from interfering with industrial hemp under the 2014 Farm
`
`Bill.” Mallory, 372 F. Supp. 3d at 385.
`
`Nevertheless, DEA, along with the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”)
`
`and the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), issued a policy statement on August
`
`12, 2016 entitled Statement of Principles on Industrial Hemp, 81 Fed. Reg. 53395-01 (Aug. 12,
`
`2016) (“SOP”). Among other provisions, the SOP (i) took the position that hemp plants and seeds
`
`grown in accordance with the 2014 Farm Bill could not be transported across state lines; and (ii)
`
`attempted to rewrite the definition of hemp, explaining that “[t]he term ‘industrial hemp’ includes
`
`the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part or derivative of such plant, including seeds of such plant,
`
`whether growing or not, that is used exclusively for industrial purposes (fiber and seed) with a
`
`tetrahydrocannabinols concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.” Id. at
`
`53,395 (emph. added). Compare with 7 U.S.C. § 5940(a)(2) (“The term ‘industrial hemp’ means
`
`the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9
`
`tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”).
`
`The SOP generated significant concern. For example, the members of Congress who
`
`drafted the 2014 Farm Bill stated in an amicus brief that the SOP contravened the 2014 Farm Bill
`
`by improperly narrowing the scope of legal hemp activity exclusively to industrial use. Kramer
`
`Decl. Ex. C at 16-20. They also noted that DEA attempted to curtail both private sector
`
`participation in pilot programs and marketing activities related to pilot program industrial hemp.”
`
`Id. at 19-20.
`
`III. The 2018 Farm Bill.
`
`In 2018, Congress acted more forcefully. As part of the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress legalized
`
`a commercial hemp industry. And this time, it built a statutory fence to keep DEA out.
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02921-JEB Document 33 Filed 03/02/21 Page 15 of 53
`
`First, the 2018 Farm Bill broadly defines “hemp” to include “all derivatives, extracts,
`
`cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers” of the plant:
`
`[Hemp is] the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the
`seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and
`salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol
`concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.
`
`7 U.S.C. § 1639o of 2018 Farm Bill (“Section 1639o”) (emph. added). This definition expands the
`
`2014 Farm Bill’s definition of “industrial hemp,” and was “intended to facilitate the commercial
`
`cultivation, processing, and marketing of hemp.” Kramer Decl. Ex. D.
`
`Second, to prohibit DEA interference with hemp production, the 2018 Farm Bill grants
`
`USDA the “sole authority to promulgate Federal regulations and guidelines that relate to the
`
`production of hemp.” 7 U.S.C. § 1639r(b) (“Section 1639r”) (emph. added). The 2018 Farm Bill
`
`also charges the USDA Secretary with administering and implementing hemp production plans,
`
`id. §§ 1639q & 1639p, a mandate that extends beyond cultivation, see Kramer Decl. Ex. E at 737
`
`(“In Sec. [1639p], the Managers intend to authorize states and tribal Governments to submit a state
`
`plan to the Secretary for approval to have primary regulatory authority over the growing and
`
`production of hemp.”).
`
`Third, although the 2018 Farm Bill preserves FDA’s and the Depar

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket