Alaska Lawsuit Challenges New DNR Regulation on Intoxicating Hemp Products as Unconstitutional

LOS ANGELES- A significant legal challenge has emerged in Alaska against a new regulation by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that restricts intoxicating hemp products. This lawsuit, filed by hemp growers and manufacturers, claims that the regulation, which prohibits the DNR from approving industrial hemp products containing delta-9 THC, is unconstitutional. The regulation, which came into effect last week, has sparked controversy and debate within the state’s industrial hemp sector.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue that the new regulations effectively outlaw all hemp-derived products produced in Alaska, potentially leading to the collapse of the state’s Industrial Hemp Pilot Program. The lawsuit has named multiple defendants, including the State of Alaska, the DNR and its Commissioner John C. Boyle III, the Alaska Division of Agriculture (DoAg), its Director Bryan Scoresby, and Lieutenant Governor Nacy Dahlstrom.

A key contention in the lawsuit is the alleged protectionist impact of the regulations, which the plaintiffs claim favor Alaska’s cannabis businesses and tax regime. The lawsuit also challenges the regulation on the grounds of the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause, emphasizing that hemp is federally legal.

The lawsuit specifically critiques the amendments stating that the DoAg may classify any cannabis product for human consumption as a ‘public nuisance injurious to the public interest.’ It allows the DoAg to destroy such products and prohibits endorsement of any industrial hemp product containing Delta-9-THC. This aspect of the regulation is particularly controversial as Delta-9-THC is a common component in many hemp products.

The attorney representing the plaintiffs, Christopher Hoke, has moved for a temporary restraining order to halt the enforcement of these regulations while the legal proceedings continue. This lawsuit signifies a critical juncture in the regulation of hemp products in Alaska, highlighting the ongoing tensions between state regulations and federal law, as well as the broader implications for the hemp industry and its stakeholders in the state.