Alex Benton, an attorney with the Attorney General's office, told a legislative committee that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled in the state's favor on all issues and dissolved a district-court preliminary injunction that had blocked enforcement of Act 629 of 2023, the state's ban on certain hemp-derived psychoactive substances. "The Eighth Circuit found that the farm bill does not preempt our law," Benton said, and the court also found the law "is not vague." He added that the court had dismissed the governor and the attorney general from the case on sovereign-immunity grounds.

The ruling does not trigger immediate enforcement, Benton cautioned: the court's order does not become effective until the Eighth Circuit issues its formal mandate. He said there is no set timeframe for that mandate and noted that plaintiffs' procedural window to file a motion for reconsideration has closed. "Once the mandate issues and the ban springs back into effect, if you're selling these products, after the mandate issues, you're doing it in violation of the law," Benton said.

Christie Bjornson, a regulatory administrator with ABC, and Director Potter, ABC's enforcement director, told the committee the agency has prioritized education and outreach while awaiting the mandate. "As of this morning, we've gone just over 1,500 permits that our agents have visited, performing courtesy visits, just advising them of the ruling and that these products are gonna become illegal very soon," Director Potter said. Bjornson said the agency has emailed and hand-delivered letters to permit holders, posted notices on its websites and provided agents with written legal definitions of the controlled substances that will apply once enforcement resumes.

ABC described the visits as proactive education rather than immediate enforcement. "Right now heavy on education rather than enforcement but ready to go as soon as the mandate comes down with seizures, criminal action and administrative violations," Bjornson said. She told the committee agents have often found retailers who already removed products in anticipation of enforcement.

Committee members pressed ABC on whether any amnesty or a glide path would follow issuance of the mandate. Representative McKenzie asked what protections retailers who sold the products while the injunction was in place might expect; ABC leaders said they had no formal amnesty to offer. "As far as an amnesty period after the mandate, I don't know that truthfully that would exist. That's occurring right now," Bjornson said, describing the current outreach as the practical compliance window.

Panelists described the litigation's future course as uncertain. Benton said the appeal was interlocutory and will be remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Eighth Circuit's opinion. He added parties could seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court because circuit splits exist on the legal issues, but he said predicting outcomes would be speculative. The committee was also told the 2025 legislative changes that include trigger language could affect when or whether an amended regulatory framework takes effect, but those triggers have not been satisfied by the interlocutory ruling.

The committee received technical questions about outreach to wholesalers and rural retailers; ABC said wholesalers and manufacturers who are permitted in its three-tier system for tobacco and alcohol have been notified. Potter said the agency plans to continue in-person visits across roughly 5,000 tobacco-permit renewals until the mandate is issued or the agency reassesses.

No formal motions or votes were taken during the meeting. Members thanked agency staff and the Attorney General's office for the update and outreach guidance for constituents. The committee adjourned after the briefing.