Capitol Hemp, D.C.’s oldest hemp retailer, filed two lawsuits on June 9, about the District’s confusing hemp regulations and federal restriction on the city’s ability to pass legislation. The company aims to bring clarity to an industry grappling with inconsistent rules and enforcement, according to a press release put out by its lawyer Pamela Wexler.
The first lawsuit, filed in D.C. Superior Court, argues the District lacks the legal authority to regulate hemp, as the D.C. Code doesn’t even mention the plant. Capitol Hemp claims it’s been unfairly targeted as an illegal cannabis operator despite selling federally legal products, seeking a judgment to affirm its lawful status.
“The word hemp doesn’t even appear in the D.C. Code,” stated Pamela Wexler, counsel for Capitol Hemp, highlighting the alleged absurdity of D.C.’s enforcement. She pointed out that while large chains and grocery stores openly sell hemp, Capitol Hemp, a licensed business, faces targeted action. Capitol Hemp was closed as part of the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration’s crack down on I-71 stores that sell recreational cannabis products.
The second, broader lawsuit in U.S. District Court, challenges the Harris Amendment, a congressional rider preventing D.C. from legislating on Schedule I substances. The Harris Rider is included again in the current proposed federal spending bill. Capitol Hemp argues that because D.C. still treats hemp as a Schedule I substance, the District is in a constitutional bind: defining hemp locally might violate the very amendment that has barred such action for a decade.
Alongside the lawsuits, Capitol Hemp founder Alan Amsterdam and other advocates unveiled the Hemp Agriculture Reform, Verification, Enforcement, Standards, and Transparency (HARVEST) Act of 2025. This proposed bill aims to create a clear regulatory framework for hemp in D.C., including definitions, labeling, testing, and licensing.
However, the HARRIS Act itself exposes a deeper legal paradox. “We’re in the absurd position of needing a Court to say whether D.C. could even introduce the Bill,” Amsterdam noted, emphasizing the dysfunction caused by the Harris Rider.
Wexler added that D.C.’s actions against hemp retailers have “provoked the first real challenge to the Harris Rider’s enforceability — and perhaps its constitutionality altogether.” She believes it’s “high time a court is finally presented with a reason to examine that Rider” after a decade of restricting D.C.’s autonomy.
These lawsuits could significantly impact how hemp is regulated in D.C. and potentially reshape the balance of power between local and federal authorities on cannabis-related issues.
