info@texasnorml.org
Texas NORML Texas NORML Texas NORML
  • Join
  • News
  • Learn More
    • About Texas NORML
      • Meet the Texas NORML Board
      • Texas NORML Mission and Bylaws
    • Texas Compassionate Use Program
    • Laws & Penalties
    • Medical Issues
  • Take Action
    • Volunteer
    • Media
    • Get Updates
    • Activist Training
    • 87th Lege: Testimony Submission
    • Take Action: Legalization
    • Take Action: Medical Cannabis
    • Take Action: Penalty Reduction
    • Activist Survey
  • Shop
  • 87th TX Lege
  • Events
  • Podcast
Donate
  • Home
  • /
  • News
  • /
  • Smokable Hemp Lawsuit: Temporary Injunction Hearing

Smokable Hemp Lawsuit: Temporary Injunction Hearing

September 14, 2020 Jax News

UPDATE: Judge Livingston has ruled to extend the terms of the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in the form of a Temporary Injunction (TI). This is based on the Judge’s ruling, pending the signed TI order. Once signed, the TI will be in place until the final trial occurs, which is currently scheduled for February 2021.

Four Texas companies are suing to overturn Texas’ ban on the manufacture and sale of smokable hemp products, which they warn will shut Texas companies out of a multi-billion-dollar industry and lead to inaccurately labeled products on store shelves. Today these companies (the plaintiffs) and their attorneys (Matt Zorn, Chelsie Spencer, and Susan Hays), participated in a temporary injunction hearing against the state (represented by Charles Eldred) in Judge Livingston’s Travis County 261st District Court.

Out of the several complaints brought by the plaintiffs, Eldred only objected to the probable right to recovery. He did not object to the points on harm or cause of action, therefore waiving the right to appeal based on those issues. Eldred contended that the state’s rules: 1. do not add to the statutes, 2. do not counter the statute, 3. do not create additional restrictions. Eldred further argued that the ban on manufacture of smokable hemp products in the statute equates to a ban on sale since they assert that was the intent of the bill. Therefore, the rules make what is implicit, explicit.

Due to time restrictions, there was substantive back and forth on if witnesses would offer verbal testimony. The plaintiffs must put evidence in the record for an injunction to hold. The nexus between the law and government interest must be weighed to deem if it is oppressive. Eldred makes a standing objection to any verbal testimony, which Livingston overrules. Ultimately, Livingston says the plaintiffs have the burden of proof and may offer testimony only in regards to the probable right of recovery.

The plaintiffs assert in their closing that the ban is a deprivation of property rights and liberty rights. It is a travesty that businesses are being shut down during an economic crisis due to this oppressive economic regulation. The state reasserts the points they made in their opening statement.

The Temporary Restraining Order is still in effect until 9/17/20. The Judge plans to offer her verdict before that date.  

Read more about the witness testimony and judge’s questions.

Link to Case: Crown Distributing, LLC v. Texas DSHS (D-1-GN-20-004053)

Share:
prev post next post

Related Posts

March Events and New Member Benefits

March 1, 2021

March Texas NORML Meeting

February 23, 2021

Legalization Exhibit at the Capitol and Lobby Day Rescheduled

February 22, 2021

Recent Updates

  • March Events and New Member Benefits
  • March Texas NORML Meeting
  • Legalization Exhibit at the Capitol and Lobby Day Rescheduled
  • Check out our newest shirt design!
  • Virtual Lobby Day
  • How Can You Help Today?

©Copyright 2021 Texas NORML. All Rights Reserved.