Perplexity
The judgment in Green Room LLC et al. v. State of Wyoming concerns a challenge by several hemp-related businesses to Wyoming’s Senate Enrolled Act 24 (SEA 24), which significantly tightened the state’s regulation of hemp beyond federal standards established in the 2018 Farm Bill. SEA 24 narrowed the definition of hemp to exclude synthetic substances, expanded THC definitions to include delta-8 and other psychoactive isomers, and criminalized hemp products exceeding 0.3% total THC by weight, including delta-8 THC and synthetic derivatives. The law classified natural and synthetic delta-8 THC as Schedule I controlled substances.
The plaintiffs, businesses involved in hemp cultivation, processing, and sales, argued that SEA 24 was preempted by federal law, violated the Dormant Commerce Clause, constituted a regulatory taking, and was unconstitutionally vague. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of the law.
The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, with key findings that federal law (the Farm Bill) did not confer substantive rights to the plaintiffs and that most defendants were protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the plaintiffs lacked a substantial federal right under the Farm Bill to support their preemption claim, failed to show a Dormant Commerce Clause violation or unconstitutional vagueness, and did not prove a regulatory taking of property. The court emphasized that the federal definition of hemp does not grant a private right to produce or sell intoxicating hemp products, and states retain broad regulatory authority over hemp.
Thus, Wyoming’s more restrictive hemp law stood, upholding the state’s broad discretion to regulate hemp beyond the federal framework. The appeal of preliminary relief denial was dismissed as moot following the case dismissal.
The court’s main legal holdings in the case Green Room LLC et al. v. State of Wyoming were:
-
Federal Preemption: The court held that the federal 2018 Farm Bill does not create any substantive rights for private parties to produce or sell hemp or hemp-derived products that exceed the federal THC limits. Thus, Wyoming’s more restrictive state hemp law (SEA 24) was not preempted by federal law.
-
Eleventh Amendment Immunity: Most of the named state defendants, including the Wyoming Governor and Attorney General, were entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, protecting them from the plaintiffs’ federal claims.
-
Dormant Commerce Clause: The court found no violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause, as Wyoming’s law was a legitimate health and safety regulation within the state’s broad police powers, and any incidental burden on interstate commerce was permissible.
-
Regulatory Taking: The plaintiffs failed to establish a regulatory taking claim. The court ruled that Wyoming’s law regulating hemp products did not substantially deprive the plaintiffs of all economically beneficial uses of their property.
-
Vagueness and Due Process: The court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that the hemp law was unconstitutionally vague, finding that the definitions and prohibitions were sufficiently clear to provide fair notice.
Overall, the court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, upholding Wyoming’s broad authority to regulate hemp beyond federal standards and rejecting the plaintiffs’ constitutional and federal preemption claims.
Judgement
