A federal judge has dismissed a high-profile lawsuit brought by a coalition of hemp farmers and retailers seeking to overturn key provisions of Maryland’s Cannabis Reform Act (CRA). In a memorandum opinion issued on March 27, 2026, U.S. District Judge Julie R. Rubin granted the State’s motion to dismiss the case brought by Charm City Hemp, LLC, the Maryland Hemp Coalition, and several other industry stakeholders. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ request to file an amended complaint, effectively halting the current legal challenge in federal court.
The lawsuit, originally filed in June 2025, aimed to enjoin Governor Wes Moore and state cannabis regulators from enforcing various provisions of the 2023 CRA. The plaintiffs argued that the law’s strict THC limits and its social equity licensing scheme were unconstitutional violations of equal protection and due process. Central to the industry’s grievance was the CRA’s prohibition on selling products containing more than 0.5 milligrams of THC per serving or 2.5 milligrams per package unless the seller holds a specific cannabis license. Hemp businesses also alleged they were unlawfully locked out of the state-licensed marketplace and the Marijuana Enforcement Tracking Regulation and Compliance (METRC) system.
Judge Rubin’s decision to dismiss the case rested heavily on jurisdictional roadblocks, specifically Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and Article III standing. The court ruled that the Eleventh Amendment bars private citizens from suing the State of Maryland and its agencies—including the Maryland Cannabis Administration (MCA) and the Maryland Alcohol, Tobacco, and Cannabis Commission—in federal court. Furthermore, the court found that Governor Wes Moore was not a proper defendant because he lacks a specific duty to enforce the CRA.
On the issue of standing, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a concrete or imminent injury because none of them had actually applied for a license during the first round of the state’s lottery. The judge noted that while plaintiffs claimed the social equity criteria made applications a futile gesture, they did not provide specific evidence that they were ready and able to apply or that the criteria were inherently discriminatory as applied to them. The court also dismissed challenges regarding early 2025 enforcement actions against hemp retailers, noting that none of the named plaintiffs alleged they were targets of the searches or seizures they sought to enjoin.
Because the dismissal was based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court entered the order without prejudice, technically allowing the plaintiffs to refile if they can overcome these legal hurdles. However, the court’s denial of the Motion to Amend suggests that the industry’s current arguments may not be sufficient to sustain a federal case. Plaintiffs have indicated in court filings that they intend to appeal the ruling to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals as the legal landscape surrounding cannabis and hemp regulation continues to shift.
