09/05/2024
On September 4, 2024, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a groundbreaking ruling, declaring that THC-O acetate, commonly known as βTHC-O,β meets the legal definition of βh**pβ under the 2018 Farm Bill and is not a controlled substance, contrary to the DEAβs stance.
The court criticized the DEAβs position, stating that synthetic cannabinoids, unlike h**p-derived cannabinoids, are manufactured entirely from synthetic materials. The court rejected the DEAβs interim final rule and letter, which claimed THC-O was illegal, finding the DEAβs interpretation unpersuasive.
The court further criticized the DEAβs February 2023 clarification that THC-O is a Schedule I controlled substance because it does not naturally occur in the cannabis plant and can only be obtained synthetically. The court sided with the Ninth Circuitβs interpretation of the 2018 Farm Bill, which found delta-8 THC lawful, and stated that the DEAβs interpretation lacked the power to persuade.
This ruling also referenced the recent Supreme Court case, Loper Bright, which overruled the Chevron Doctrine, emphasizing that courts do not need to defer to federal agenciesβ interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The court made it clear that the DEAβs positions on h**p would not receive special treatment and that the most reasonable interpretation of the Farm Bill would prevail, following the plain and unambiguous language of the law.
This case arose from a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by a North Carolina woman who was fired after testing positive for ma*****na, despite using legal h**p products, including THC-O. The case also included a dissenting opinion by Judge Richardson, who questioned whether THC-O meets the definition of a legal h**p derivative since it does not naturally occur in the plant.
**p
Full case link: