Travis County TRO Hearing Concluded — Ruling Not Yet Public

What we know

A hearing on the plaintiffs' application for a temporary restraining order was set for 3:00 PM Central today in the 459th Judicial District Court of Travis County, before Judge Maya Guerra Gamble. The case was filed on August 19, 2026, by attorney David K. Sergi on behalf of SS Distro USA LLC; Topps Distro LLC (doing business as KingPin Kush); Jason Moreno (doing business as My City Hemp); and Trevor Kocaoglan. The defendants are the Texas Department of State Health Services, Interim Commissioner Imelda Garcia, and Division Director Glenn Hargett.

The suit challenges what the plaintiffs call the agency's "Post-July Implementation and Enforcement Standard" — the posture DSHS has taken since the July 31, 2026 restrictions took hold, under which the agency has moved to detain product and refer businesses to law enforcement when items contain more than trace amounts of naturally occurring cannabinoids such as THCA. The filing also challenges the fee structure — $10,000 annually for manufacturers and $5,000 per retail location — and argues the agency changed policy without the rulemaking process the Texas Administrative Procedure Act requires, in violation of the separation-of-powers provision of the Texas Constitution.

What we do not know

We do not know the outcome. As of the time this post went live, we have checked court-facing sources and the outlets that have covered this litigation closely — including The Marijuana Herald, the Texas Tribune, KUT, KXAN, Cannabis Business Times, TX Cannabis Collective, and hemp-focused law firm commentary — and none has reported a result from today's setting. We have not located a signed order.

We are deliberately not filling that gap with a guess. There are several ordinary outcomes here, and they look very different for the industry:

• Granted. The judge signs an order temporarily pausing some or all of the challenged enforcement standard, typically for about 14 days, with a temporary injunction hearing to follow.
• Denied. The judge declines to pause anything, and the case proceeds on a normal schedule.
• Under advisement. The judge hears argument and takes time before ruling. Orders in matters like this sometimes issue a day or more after the hearing.
• Reset. The hearing is continued or rescheduled — which has happened more than once in Texas hemp litigation this year.

Until a signed order exists and we can read it, all four remain live possibilities.

Why we are being careful with the word "blocked"

A temporary restraining order is not a law and it is not a final ruling. It is a short pause that lets a court take a closer look before anyone's position hardens. It does not decide whether DSHS is right or wrong. And it does not automatically survive.

The recent history in Texas makes that concrete. In April 2026, a Travis County judge granted a TRO in the related Texas Hemp Business Council case, pausing a different DSHS hemp rulemaking package. That relief was later lifted by the Texas Fifteenth Court of Appeals in June 2026 — and the state's interlocutory appeal in that matter is still pending, which is part of why the trial originally set for late July did not go forward. A win at the trial court in Austin is a real development, but it is not the end of the road, and it can be undone within weeks.

So even in the scenario where a TRO is granted here, we will not tell you that Texas enforcement has "stopped." We will tell you precisely what the order enjoins, when it takes effect, how long it runs, and what the state's likely next move is.

Who this affects, and how

• Texas retailers and manufacturers. The fee structure and the detention-and-referral posture are the two pressure points. A pause on either changes near-term operating risk. No pause means the current compliance calculus holds.
• Texas shoppers. In practical terms, what is legally available at Texas retail is set by the enforcement standard currently in force — which, as of right now, is unchanged. A TRO would not instantly repopulate shelves; distributors and retailers move on court certainty, not court possibility, especially after watching April's relief evaporate in June.
• Everyone else. This is a state-court challenge to state agency action. It is separate from the federal litigation in the Southern District of Texas, where an emergency motion was denied on August 9, 2026 and a preliminary injunction request remains pending.

What comes next

• An order. Whenever it is signed and docketed, that is the first thing that matters. We will read it before we characterize it.
• If a TRO is granted: watch for the state to seek emergency appellate relief, as it did in the THBC case, and watch for the temporary injunction hearing that typically follows within roughly two weeks.
• If a TRO is denied: the case does not end. Plaintiffs can continue to press the temporary injunction and the underlying APA and separation-of-powers claims.
• Either way: the pending appeal in the THBC matter before the Fifteenth Court of Appeals continues to shape the broader landscape.

Bottom line

The hearing was scheduled and its time has passed. The result is not public yet. We would rather tell you that plainly than publish a decision no one has actually seen. Nothing about Texas enforcement, our shelves, our shipping, or our pickup has changed today. The moment there is a signed order to read, we will publish what it says — in plain English, with the caveats intact.

Official sources & further reading

• Travis County — 459th Civil District Court (official)
• Texas DSHS — Consumable Hemp Program (official)
• The Marijuana Herald — coverage of the August 19, 2026 filing
• Texas Hemp Business Council — THBC v. DSHS: where the lawsuit stands
• Texas Tribune — federal court denies emergency motion, August 2026
• KUT Austin — Fifteenth Court of Appeals decision, June 2026