Hemp Lawsuit against DSHS And Ken Paxton to get TRO Hearing Today
April 10, 2026
Today at 2 PM the District court in Travis County will hold a hearing regarding a temporary restraining order against DSHS and other parties regarding the most recent regulatory changes.
Streamed live on YouTube
The hearing can be found streamed live on YouTube via the following link.
https://www.youtube.com/cha
nnel/UCF_rPoUGrNE
GiqEtiAPTLEg
As of the writing of this article right now we cannot embed a video because they have not started streaming, and there is no content to embed.
The Honorable
Maya Guerra Gamble
Judge Guerra Gamble has served as the presiding judge of the 459th District Court since January, 2019. She will be presiding over this hearing.
What exactly is this case
The Texas Hemp Business Council and a group of hemp retailers, manufacturers, and trade associations filed this lawsuit on April 7, 2026, challenging new rules adopted by DSHS and HHSC that took effect March 31. The rules were the state agencies’ response to Governor Abbott’s Executive Order GA-56 after a long string of legislative failures, the Legislature passed SB 3 to tighten hemp regulations, Abbott vetoed it, two special sessions were called, neither produced a bill, and no new law was enacted.
Despite that outcome, the agencies used rulemaking to do what the Legislature declined to authorize: they replaced the existing 0.3% delta-9 THC compliance standard with a “total delta-9 THC” calculation that converts THCA into THC equivalents, effectively making a large portion of currently legal hemp products illegal overnight.
The plaintiffs are not challenging the entire rule package. They explicitly support age verification requirements and other consumer safety provisions. What they’re fighting are four specific overreaches: the substitution of a non-statutory THC compliance metric, restrictions on transporting raw hemp material into Texas for processing, a fee structure that raised manufacturer licenses from $250 to $10,000 and retail registrations from $150 to $5,000 per location, and a compounding daily penalty provision.
The economic stakes are significant. The agencies’ own rulemaking record projected impacts exceeding $200 million annually across more than 9,900 businesses, while the program costs the state roughly $70,000 a year to administer. The plaintiffs argue the fee structure is not regulatory cost recovery but an unconstitutional occupational tax.
The constitutional argument at the center of the case is a separation of powers claim. Plaintiffs argue that the Legislature considered and declined to enact exactly these policy changes, and that an administrative agency cannot accomplish through rulemaking what the constitutional lawmaking process refused to authorize. They point to the fact that DSHS itself acknowledged during a 2024 rule review that changing the THC threshold requires legislative action and was outside the scope of its authority, then turned around and effectively did it anyway through a definitional workaround that preserved the statutory language while gutting it in operation.
What does a TRO hearing look like and what does it do?
A TRO hearing for a case like this would typically be an emergency proceeding held within days of filing, often with short notice to the defendants. The judge would hear oral argument from both sides (defendant not rewuired to be present), usually 20 to 45 minutes per side, focused on four questions: whether the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits, whether they face imminent irreparable harm if the rules are enforced, whether the balance of equities favors relief, and whether granting a TRO would harm the public interest.
The plaintiffs’ strongest argument is the irreparable harm prong — businesses are already facing a choice between compliance costs that render them economically nonviable or operating in violation of rules that carry escalating daily penalties and license revocation risk. The state could likely argue the rules serve a legitimate public health interest and that the agencies acted within their authority under GA-56.
If the judge grants the TRO, it would pause enforcement of the challenged provisions for roughly 14 days while the parties prepare for a temporary injunction hearing, where the same issues get a more thorough airing with evidence and possibly witness testimony.
Join Our Newsletter
Sign up to our free subscription service and receive an email whenever we post new articles.
“NOW YOU”RE COOKING WITH CANNABIS!” – Website design by DMT Enterprises
Copyright © 2023-2024. All rights reserved.