Texas Defends THCA-Based Hemp Testing Rules in New Appeals Court Filing
- Texas is asking the state appeals court to uphold its new consumable hemp regulations, defending the use of a THC testing method that includes the conversion of THCA into delta-9 THC as within the authority of state health agencies.
- The dispute centers on whether the legal limit of 0.3% delta-9 THC should include THCA conversion, with Texas arguing this method is scientifically valid and federally consistent, while hemp businesses claim regulators exceeded their authority.
- In addition to THC testing, Texas defends restrictions on noncompliant hemp materials, high licensing fees for manufacturers and retailers, and argues these fees fund necessary regulatory activities like inspections and enforcement.
- The state also asserts it followed proper rulemaking procedures, addressed over 1,400 public comments, and seeks to reverse a trial court order and vacate a temporary injunction, with the disputed hemp rules remaining effective during the appeal.
Texas is asking a state appeals court to uphold its new consumable hemp regulations, arguing that state health agencies acted within their authority when they adopted a THC testing standard that accounts for the conversion of THCA into delta-9 THC.
In a 39-page reply brief filed Thursday with the Texas Fifteenth Court of Appeals, the state defended rules adopted by the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) and Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and asked the court to dismiss claims brought by the Texas Hemp Business Council and other businesses.
At the center of the dispute is how Texas determines whether a consumable hemp product exceeds the legal limit of 0.3% delta-9 THC.
The rules, which took effect March 31, define “total delta-9 THC” in a way that accounts for the potential conversion of tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, or THCA, into delta-9 THC through decarboxylation. The state argues that the approach is a testing methodology used to enforce the existing statutory threshold rather than a new THC limit created by regulators.
Texas called the total-delta-9 approach the “scientifically and legally correct standard” for determining compliance, arguing that federal regulations and the state’s federally approved hemp plan also require testing to account for THCA conversion.
The hemp businesses disagree. They argue that Texas law specifically establishes a 0.3% delta-9 THC standard and that regulators exceeded their authority by using a calculation that incorporates THCA when deciding whether finished products are legal.
Texas counters that the disagreement is largely over scientific methodology and falls within the expertise delegated to state health regulators. The filing also points to upcoming changes in federal hemp law that Texas says more closely align federal standards with the state’s position.
The appeal extends beyond THC testing. Texas is also defending restrictions involving noncompliant hemp materials brought into the state for manufacturing, administrative penalties and licensing fees of $10,000 for manufacturers and $5,000 for retailers.
The state argues those fees are regulatory rather than an unconstitutional occupation tax, saying the money is needed to expand inspections, laboratory testing and enforcement. According to the filing, Texas had more than 14,000 hemp licensees in 2025 and DSHS plans to increase its inspection workforce from seven to 23 inspectors.
Texas also rejected claims that regulators failed to follow required rulemaking procedures. HHSC received 1,421 public comments before adopting the regulations and made several changes to the proposed rules, including reducing fees and removing some proposed packaging and advertising restrictions.
The state is asking the appeals court to reverse the trial court’s order, dismiss the businesses’ claims that officials acted beyond their legal authority and vacate the temporary injunction previously issued in the case. Both sides have requested oral arguments, but the court has not yet announced whether arguments will be held.
The challenged hemp rules remain in effect while the appeal proceeds.