Legal Caution or Missed Opportunity? What Texas Can Learn from Arkansas’ Hemp Ban Victory
Author: Peter Prevot, CPA, CIA, CEO at Bridge West Consulting
After the conclusion of a divisive 2025 Texas legislative session, Texas Governor Greg Abbott stunned political insiders and lawmakers alike when he vetoed Senate Bill 3 (SB 3)—a sweeping measure that would have banned all intoxicating hemp products containing THC, including Delta-8 and Delta-9. The move surprised even his closest allies, including Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, who had championed the bill throughout the session. In his veto proclamation for SB 3, Gov. Abbot stated that among his concerns for SB 3 was that, Sb 3 would “never go into effect because of valid constitutional challenges.”
Just days after the veto, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit handed down a decision that could have changed everything: it upheld Arkansas’s Act 629, a law that imposes nearly identical restrictions on intoxicating hemp products.
One state leaned into the legal risk—and won. Another backed off in anticipation. Did Texas blink while Arkansas forged a court-approved path forward?
Texas SB 3: A Veto Grounded in Legal Uncertainty
SB 3 proposed a comprehensive ban on intoxicating hemp products containing any form of THC, targeting Delta-8, Delta-10, THC-O, and similar cannabinoids. The bill had strong support from law enforcement agencies, district attorneys, public health groups, and even some veterans’ organizations concerned about youth access and product safety.
Abbott’s stated reason for the veto was legal uncertainty. He cited concerns about federal preemption and the risk of prolonged litigation, stating that tighter regulation, rather than outright prohibition, would be a quicker and more effective way to protect Texans. In his veto message, Abbott stated that a forthcoming special session would revisit the issue with a more balanced regulatory framework.
The response from Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick was swift and sharp. He accused Abbott of undermining law enforcement and public safety, noting that the bill had passed with overwhelming support in both chambers. Patrick’s frustration signaled a deeper divide in how Texas leadership views the intersection of public health, states’ rights, and political strategy.
The stage is now set for a late July special session, where both Abbott and Patrick are expected to push competing visions for hemp in Texas. Comments from both leaders in recent weeks suggest a heated debate could be coming.
Arkansas Act 629: Prohibition with a Legal Safety Valve
Arkansas took a similar route in its path to banning intoxicating hemp. Act 629 redefined hemp by narrowing the scope of the 0.3% THC limit, banning many intoxicating cannabinoids outright, and expanding the definition of illegal marijuana under state law. But crucially, it included a “savings clause” that exempted federally compliant hemp in interstate transport from criminal penalties.
The law was immediately challenged in federal court by a coalition of hemp businesses. Yesterday, the Eighth Circuit upheld the law, finding that it did not violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, was not unconstitutionally vague, and did not interfere with federal protections for interstate hemp transport.
Arkansas succeeded where Abbott feared failure. As of now, no further appeals have been announced, but industry watchers will closely monitor the case for any petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, which now represents the final route of appeal for the Arkansas litigation. Had the Texas law go into effect and been challenged, it would represent the first potential opportunity for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Texas in its jurisdiction, to weigh in on the issue and either follow the 8th Circuit’s precedent or create a “circuit split” likely to increase the chances of the United States Supreme Court weighing in on the issue.
The Arkansas Ruling’s Implications for Texas
Abbott vetoed SB 3 to avoid litigation—but the litigation he feared has now been resolved in Arkansas’s favor and likely could have been resolved in Texas’s favor as well. The Eighth Circuit’s endorsement of the “savings clause” provides Texas with an illustrative path forward.
When the Texas Legislature returns for a special session in July, lawmakers could easily draft a ban-with-exemption model that mirrors Arkansas Act 629. The result: an intoxicating hemp prohibition statute that likely survives legal scrutiny while carving out protections for interstate commerce.
If Abbott was sincere about his legal concerns, this should be a quick and uneventful session. The blueprint is in front of him—battle tested and validated by the courts. But if his veto was, as some suggest, a political maneuver to appease the hemp industry, then Texans can expect political fireworks in Austin well beyond the July 4 holiday.
The Southeast Landscape: Parallel Battles on Hemp
Texas and Arkansas are not alone. Other Southeastern states are grappling with the same policy tensions:
Alabama: HB 445 takes effect July 1, 2025. It bans smokable hemp, bans hemp vapes and imposes strict THC caps on edibles and drinks (10 mg per serving, 40 mg per package). Raids have already begun, with enforcement ramping up this week.
Georgia: Senate Bill 254, which sought to ban THC-infused beverages and regulate intoxicating cannabinoids, passed the Senate but stalled in the House. The legislature adjourned on April 4, 2025, leaving current laws intact. Lawmakers have signaled plans to revisit the issue in 2026.
Mississippi: A proposed ban (HB 1502) failed earlier this year, but a June 2025 opinion from the state Attorney General declared that all non-medical marijuana, non-FDA-approved hemp products are likely unlawful under the states existing controlled substances laws.
Across the region, a prohibition-first trend is taking hold—with varying degrees of clarity, enforcement, and political fallout.
Florida: Populism over Policy
In 2024, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis vetoed a similar hemp ban. Unlike Abbott or Sanders, DeSantis’s move was widely seen as politically motivated. Critics argued it was a direct shot at Trulieve, Florida’s largest medical marijuana company, and a populist gesture aimed at distancing himself from the existing marijuana industry in Florida.
While Florida’s veto was rooted in political calculus, Texas and Arkansas present a clearer contrast: law, litigation, and legal strategy.
Texas Second Chance
The legal landscape has shifted quickly since Gov. Abbot’s veto of SB. 3. The Arkansas ruling gives Texas lawmakers a potential legal playbook for banning hemp-derived THC products if the legislative will is to do so.
The July special session offers Texas a second chance: adopt a court-approved model or defy the will of a Legislature that overwhelmingly supported a ban. The vote wasn’t close. The political cost of doing nothing may be higher this time around.
The question isn’t what’s legal anymore—it’s what’s politically possible in Texas?
Meanwhile, At the Federal Level
Up in Washington, Senator Mitch McConnell, original author of the federal hemp legislation, has tucked language into the Senate’s agriculture-FDA spending bill that would redefine hemp so that any consumable product containing a “quantifiable” amount of THC becomes illegal—a change he says will “take us back to the original intent of the 2018 Farm Bill” and protect kids from “unregulated, intoxicating, lab-made” cannabinoids. While the committee ultimately adopted a bipartisan compromise to delay the ban for one year and give growers “ample time to prepare”, Democratic senators such as Sen. Jeff Merkley warn the draft is still so broad it could sweep up benign CBD along with delta-8 gummies.
Over in the House, Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Rep. Andy Harris has advanced nearly identical budget language, arguing it will “close the hemp loophole…allowing intoxicating cannabinoid products to reach consumers.”
If these parallel provisions survive the fall conference committee, Congress could do in one must-pass budget what Arkansas just did in court and what Texas is still debating in special session: impose a de-facto nationwide ban on hemp-derived THC products while leaving grain and fiber hemp largely untouched.
