Texas
State law last verified: 2026-08-17
Texas law now separates compliant hemp from non-delta-9 THC isomers through two legal instruments that took effect four months apart. Treating them as one “ban” obscures which rule controls which product and which court can change it. 51 TexReg 4597 SCOTX No. 23-0887
We have an article on Texas, published 2026-01-18, but it has not been re-verified against current law since publication. Use it only as older context; the sourced, last-verified information on this page controls.
What Texas law is now
- Compliant hemp remains legal. Hemp at or below 0.3% total delta-9 THC by dry weight, measured with THCA included, remains within the Texas consumable-hemp program. CBD, CBG and CBN are unaffected by the July schedule notice. Texas State Law Library
- Non-delta-9 THC isomers are Schedule I. The schedule’s definition reaches delta-8, delta-10, THCP and other non-delta-9 isomers; its only hemp carve-out is delta-9 at or below 0.3%. 51 TexReg 4597
- THCA flower is effectively excluded by a different measure. Texas calculates total delta-9 as (0.877 × THCA) + delta-9 under 25 TAC ch. 300. Texas State Law Library
- Texas has no per-serving or per-container milligram cap. Its state program uses the 0.3% total-delta-9 potency standard, together with testing, labeling, packaging and registration rules. Texas DSHS
Two instruments, two jobs
25 TAC chapter 300
This DSHS consumable-hemp program rule established the THCA-inclusive total-delta-9 measurement, a 21+ sales gate, age verification, fees, testing, labeling and packaging requirements. Its potency formula is what makes THCA flower effectively unavailable. EO GA-56
Its challenge proceeds in Texas state court. SCOTX No. 23-0887
51 TexReg 4597
This Texas Register “In Addition” notice republished controlled-substance definitions first adopted in 2021. It makes non-delta-9 THC isomers Schedule I; it is not the source of the March THCA potency rule. Texas Register notice
Its challenge proceeds in federal court, where an emergency request was denied and a preliminary-injunction request remained pending at verification. Texas Tribune
Why the distinction matters: the instruments regulate different things and are challenged in different courts. A ruling affecting one does not automatically change the other. SCOTX opinion Federal suit
Age rule and penalties
- The 21+ requirement comes from agency rule. 25 TAC §300.701 bars delivery, sale or offer of a consumable hemp product to a person under 21 and requires valid identification review before sale. The age limit is not in HSC chapter 443 itself. EO GA-56
- Non-delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinols sit in Penalty Group 2. Under Tex. Health & Safety Code §§481.103(a)(1) and 481.116, possession below one gram is a state jail felony carrying 180 days to two years and a fine up to $10,000. Texas State Law Library
- Statutory weight is aggregate weight. Adulterants and dilutants count, so the whole edible—not only cannabinoid milligrams—enters the weight calculation and can raise the offense grade. Texas State Law Library
Rights and duties during detention
- Cannabis odor supports probable cause in Texas. Six Texas appellate courts have reached that result after hemp legalization, including Isaac v. State, 675 S.W.3d 116 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2023), and State v. Gonzales, 676 S.W.3d 261 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2023). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has not ruled on the question. Texas State Law Library
- A lawfully detained driver has an identification duty. Tex. Penal Code §38.02(b-1) requires the driver of a motor vehicle to display a driver’s licence and provide name, residence address and date of birth during lawful detention. The provision applies to drivers, not passengers or pedestrians. Texas State Law Library
- False identifying information is a separate offense. Section 38.02(b) covers false information during lawful detention or arrest; §38.02(a)’s affirmative identification duty applies on lawful arrest. Texas State Law Library
- Consent and probable cause are separate legal grounds. Texas requires clear and convincing evidence that consent was voluntary under State v. Ibarra, 953 S.W.2d 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), and Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Texas State Law Library