The Trump administration’s Justice Department just moved to shut down a lawsuit from Washington DC’s oldest hemp store, aiming to protect a federal ban that’s blocked local cannabis sales for years. This fight highlights tensions over who controls drug laws in the nation’s capital, leaving business owners and residents in limbo.
The Core of the Dispute
Capitol Hemp, a fixture in DC since 2010, filed a federal lawsuit in June 2025 to challenge the Harris Amendment. This budget rider, named after Maryland Rep. Andy Harris, stops the district from using funds to legalize or regulate marijuana sales. The shop argues it creates an impossible situation for hemp businesses dealing with THC products.
The Justice Department under President Trump asked a federal judge this week to dismiss the case, calling it without merit. They say the shop lacks standing and fails to state a valid claim. This comes amid a broader push by the administration to roll back Biden-era cannabis rules.
The amendment has tied DC’s hands since 2014, even though voters approved legalization that year. Local leaders can’t set up a retail market, leading to a gray area where hemp-derived items thrive but face crackdowns.
Why Capitol Hemp Is Fighting Back
Capitol Hemp isn’t stopping at the federal level. They also sued the district over what they call vague hemp regulations that make it hard to operate legally. For over a year, the shop has pushed against city efforts to curb hemp-derived THC sales, which some see as skirting marijuana laws.
Owners point to inconsistent enforcement. One raid last year seized products worth thousands, hurting their bottom line. This legal battle seeks clarity and the right for DC to handle its own drug policies without congressional interference.
The Harris Amendment, renewed yearly in federal budgets, reflects ongoing national debates on cannabis. While 24 states have full legalization as of 2025, DC remains stuck due to its unique status under federal oversight.
- Hemp-derived THC products often test below 0.3% delta-9 THC, making them legal federally under the 2018 Farm Bill.
- But DC’s rules blur lines, leading to confusion for shops like Capitol Hemp.
- The lawsuit claims this setup violates due process and equal protection.
A win could open doors for regulated cannabis sales in DC, boosting the local economy.
Broader Impacts on Cannabis Policy
This case ties into Trump’s return to the White House and his team’s quick actions on drug policy. Just weeks into the term, the DOJ withdrew proposals for expanded marijuana research and hemp testing from the Biden years. Critics say it’s a step back for reform.
Advocates like NORML argue the Harris Amendment unfairly punishes DC residents, who voted overwhelmingly for legalization in 2014. Polls from Pew Research in 2024 show 59% of Americans support full cannabis legalization, up from 31% in 2000.
DC’s hemp market has boomed, with sales hitting $100 million last year according to industry estimates. But without clear rules, black market risks grow, affecting public safety.
The lawsuit also questions Congress’s broad power over DC. A separate case this summer challenged Trump’s moves on local police, showing wider fights over autonomy.
| Year | Key Event in DC Cannabis Policy |
|---|---|
| 2014 | Voters approve legalization Initiative 71 |
| 2015 | Harris Amendment first blocks retail setup |
| 2024 | Hemp sales surge amid regulatory gaps |
| 2025 | Capitol Hemp sues over amendment and local laws |
This table shows the timeline of stalled progress.
Potential Outcomes and What’s Next
If the judge sides with the DOJ, the Harris Amendment stays, keeping DC’s cannabis market in chaos. Capitol Hemp vows to appeal, potentially taking it to higher courts.
Experts predict more challenges as states push boundaries. A 2025 report from the Congressional Research Service notes over 50 hemp-related bills pending, signaling change.
The fight exposes divides in the GOP. While Harris pushes anti-cannabis stances, others like some Trump allies favor reform for economic gains.
Businesses watch closely. A ruling could set precedents for how federal riders control local laws elsewhere.
This showdown in DC courts captures the frustration of a city treated like a federal experiment, where residents vote for change but Congress overrides it. It stirs hope for autonomy and outrage over outdated restrictions, reminding us that drug policy affects everyday lives from health access to jobs.