Several Connecticut hemp farmers filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging state laws they say contradict federal regulations and have devastated the state’s hemp industry, causing licensed operations to plummet from 119 to just 25 over two years.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Connecticut, lists Gov. Ned Lamont, Attorney General William Tong, Chief State’s Attorney Patrick Griffin and Consumer Protection Commissioner Bryan Cafferelli as defendants.
The plaintiffs — farmers Michael Goodenough, Darren Cugno, Norman Plude and Wells Farming LLC, along with hemp processor Ricardo Sotil — claim recent state laws redefining THC levels violate the 2018 federal Farm Bill and Connecticut’s own U.S. Department of Agriculture-approved hemp plan.
THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, is the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis. Because the effects of THC are dose dependent, low levels of the compound do not cause any intoxicating effects.
The federal Farm Bill legalized hemp containing no more than 0.3% Delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis. Connecticut received federal approval for its hemp plan using this definition in December 2021.
In 2023, however, Connecticut passed new laws tightening THC thresholds, reclassifying many hemp products as cannabis.
Hemp farmers generally don’t hold cannabis cultivation or retail licenses — which are expensive and tightly regulated — so they lost the legal ability to sell many of their crops.
The plaintiffs, represented by Genevieve Park Taylor, of Sound Legal LLC in Westbrook, claim the discrepancy between state and federal laws has devastated their business model.
“These legislative changes in Connecticut directly conflict with the approved hemp plan and have rendered the farmers’ licenses essentially useless,” Park Taylor told the Hartford Business Journal. “There has been real and direct harm to these farmers, and we’re just trying to help them restore the rights that these state-issued hemp licenses gave them.”
The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment requiring Connecticut to follow federal hemp definitions. The plaintiffs also want injunctive relief preventing state interference with federally compliant hemp operations, arguing that their licenses are property rights protected by the Constitution.
In the complaint, plaintiff Sotil claims he invested more than $1 million in equipment only to see his business threatened by the contradictory requirements. Another plaintiff, Plude, has reduced his hemp operation from 9 acres to just 400 square feet.
