Travis County Court Denies Hemp Businesses' Restraining Order Request — Texas Enforcement Continues, Injunction Hearing Set for October 30

A Travis County district court has denied a request by four Texas hemp businesses for a temporary restraining order that would have halted the Texas Department of State Health Services' current enforcement standard for consumable hemp products. Counsel for the plaintiffs announced the denial in a statement dated September 4, 2026; the ruling was publicly reported on September 6, 2026.

The court simultaneously set a hearing on the plaintiffs' request for a temporary injunction. That hearing is scheduled for October 30, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Maria Cantu Hexsel of the 53rd District Court, at the Travis County Civil and Family Courts Facility, 1700 Guadalupe Street, Austin. The denial of the temporary restraining order does not resolve the lawsuit and does not determine whether the challenged DSHS practices are lawful.

What the court decided

A temporary restraining order is short-term emergency relief. A Texas court may issue one to preserve the status quo where an applicant shows imminent and irreparable injury before a temporary injunction hearing can be held. The Travis County court declined to grant that relief here.

The practical consequence is narrow but concrete: the state's current enforcement posture stays in place, unaltered, through at least the October 30 hearing date. Plaintiffs' counsel, David K. Sergi of David K. Sergi & Associates in San Marcos, characterized the outcome as a disappointment while noting the firm's intent to press the temporary injunction request, stating that the case "will require a comprehensive hearing."

The underlying lawsuit

Cause No. D-1-GN-26-007113 was filed in the 459th Judicial District Court of Travis County on behalf of SS Distro USA LLC; Topps Distro LLC d/b/a KingPin Kush; Jason Moreno d/b/a My City Hemp; and Trevor Kocaoglan. Named defendants include DSHS, Interim Commissioner Imelda Garcia, and Division Director Glenn Hargett.

The petition challenges what the plaintiffs describe as DSHS's use of an undefined "trace amount" standard following the July 31, 2026 scheduling action. Their central argument is procedural: that the standard is not defined by statute, by an adopted agency rule, or by any other lawfully adopted instrument, and therefore cannot be enforced in its present form. The plaintiffs ask the court to declare that if DSHS wishes to establish and enforce such a standard, it must do so through formal rulemaking.

The petition also invokes House Bill 1325 (2019), which established the Texas statutory definition of hemp by reference to a delta-9 THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry-weight basis, and contends that DSHS cannot effectively rewrite that legislative framework through administrative enforcement. Additional claims challenge annual licensing fees of $10,000 for manufacturers and $5,000 for retailers, and allege violations of the Texas Administrative Procedure Act and the separation-of-powers provisions of the Texas Constitution.

An economic analysis submitted in connection with the lawsuit estimates the Texas consumable hemp industry at approximately $5.1 billion in annual business revenue supporting nearly 48,900 jobs.

Effect on Texas businesses and consumers

Retailers. No change. The DSHS standard applied since the July 31 scheduling action remains enforceable. Retailers should continue operating on the compliance assumptions in place before this ruling, and should not treat the scheduled October 30 hearing as a forecast of any outcome.

Manufacturers and distributors. No change. Licensing fee obligations remain in place; the fee challenge is a claim in the pending lawsuit, not a suspension of the fees. Product formulation and testing decisions should continue to be made against the currently enforceable state standard.

Consumers. No change. Product availability in Texas is governed by the same restrictions that have applied since July 31, 2026.

Online sales into Texas. No change. Nothing in this ruling alters what may lawfully be shipped to or sold within Texas.

What is still pending

Three separate tracks continue to run in parallel, and each can move independently of the others:

First, this case — the temporary injunction request set for October 30. Second, the Texas Hemp Business Council's separate challenge to the March 31, 2026 consumable hemp rules, which remains before the Texas Fifteenth Court of Appeals on interlocutory appeal. Third, the federal implementation timeline established by the enacted appropriations legislation, with most provisions now keyed to December 11, 2026.

What CLOUDWIRE Is Watching Next

1. Posting of the signed order denying the temporary restraining order to the Travis County District Clerk's public docket for Cause No. D-1-GN-26-007113.
2. Any response, plea to the jurisdiction, or dispositive motion filed by DSHS or the Office of the Attorney General ahead of the October 30 hearing.
3. Any order from the Texas Fifteenth Court of Appeals in the pending THBC v. DSHS interlocutory appeal.
4. New DSHS notices, recalls, seizure actions, or Texas Register rule publications bearing on the "trace amount" standard at issue.
5. Federal agency publication of the cannabinoid lists and related guidance required under the amended federal hemp definition, which remain outstanding.
6. The October 30, 2026 hearing itself, and any ruling that follows it.

Bottom Line

An Austin court declined to hit the pause button. That is the entire scope of what happened. Texas enforcement continues exactly as it has since July 31, 2026, the federal December 11 date remains the operative federal deadline for most provisions, and the substantive question of whether DSHS exceeded its authority has not been answered — it has been scheduled, for October 30. Businesses that have been waiting for a court to change the operating environment should plan on the assumption that nothing has changed, because nothing has.

This article is provided for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not determine whether a particular product, transaction, or business practice complies with federal, state, or local law.

Official Sources

• Travis County District Clerk — Case Information & Records (public docket search for Cause No. D-1-GN-26-007113)
• Texas Department of State Health Services — Consumable Hemp Program
• Texas Fifteenth Court of Appeals (pending THBC v. DSHS interlocutory appeal)
• Congressional Research Service — Changes to the Federal Definition of Hemp: Legal Considerations Under the Controlled Substances Act

Supplemental reporting: statement of plaintiffs' counsel David K. Sergi & Associates (September 4, 2026), as distributed via Cannabis Law Report; and The Marijuana Herald, "Texas Judge Denies Temporary Restraining Order in Hemp Industry Lawsuit, Injunction Hearing Set for October 30" (September 6, 2026).