On July 10, DSHS reinstated its 2021 definitions of “Tetrahydrocannabinols” and “Marihuana Extract” as controlled substances — definitions that had been blocked by a court injunction since November 2021 and are now back in effect following the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling.

This new schedule concludes that delta-8 and all THC isomers that are NOT delta-9 THC, are considered controlled substances. This goes into effect on July 31, 2026.

Read notice here: Notice Reinstating Clarifications to the Definitions of Tetrahydrocannabinols and Marihuana Extract to the 2021 Schedule of Controlled Substances

The timeline:

  • In Sky Marketing Corp. v. DSHS, a Travis County judge enjoined DSHS from enforcing these definitions in 2021 by implementing a temporary injunction.
  • On May 1, 2026, the Texas Supreme Court reversed that injunction.
  • The mandate dismissing the case was issued June 5, 2026. DSHS’s July 10 notice is the direct result — it reinstates the definitions exactly as written before the injunction.

No proper announcement, again. 

DSHS had signaled it intended to move on delta-8 once the litigation wrapped. It was reasonable to expect that DSHS would go through the motions of a proper notice and comment period but it appears they have just elected to pick up where they left off in 2021.

The announcement has still not been provided publicly by DSHS. The only notice to the public this far is an entry in the Texas Register. 

Effective date for enforcement: July 31, 2026 per DSHS’s controlled substances schedule page.

What businesses need to do now:

Sell through or pull any inventory containing more than trace amounts of delta-8, delta-10, delta-6, THCP, and any other derivative that falls under the definition above.

The reinstated rule text:

*(31) Tetrahydrocannabinols, meaning tetrahydrocannabinols naturally contained in a plant of the genus Cannabis (cannabis plant), except for up to 0.3% delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp (as defined under Texas Agriculture Code 121), as well as synthetic equivalents of the substances contained in the cannabis plant, or in the resinous extractives of such plant, and/or synthetic substances, derivatives, and their isomers with similar chemical structure and pharmacological activity to those substances contained in the plant, such as the following:
— 1 cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and their optical isomers
— 6 cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and their optical isomers
— 3,4 cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and its optical isomers

(Since nomenclature of these substances is not internationally standardized, compounds of these structures are covered regardless of numerical designation of atomic positions.)

*Experts agree this is somewhat unclear and given that the scientific meaning between “conversion” and “synthesis” has not yet been decided by any Texas court. Therefore, a good faith, scientifically defensible position is that converted D9 is not synthetic as that term is used under both the federal and Texas statutes. 

Future Actions: 

This notice does not moot or void the existing lawsuit (currently in appeals court) for a variety of reasons. Unless someone wants to fund a follow up lawsuit (on the merits not the APA claim), THBC, will, at this time, not move forward with any additional legal action regarding delta-8.