The plaintiffs in Monti v. Garcia have filed a First Amended Complaint and moved for summary judgment in their federal challenge to Texas’s Schedule I classification of hemp-derived THCs. In plain language, they have asked the federal judge to decide the case without a trial.
Read First Amended Complaint: Monti v. Garcia – Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment
We’re sharing the latest developments outlined in an October 1 update provided by lead attorney Andrea Steel and the plaintiffs’ legal team, including the arguments now at the center of the case and what comes next.
As of that update, Texas’s rule treating hemp-derived THCs as Schedule I drugs, with an exception for up to 0.3% delta-9 THC in hemp, remained in effect and enforceable.
How the case got here
The plaintiffs filed the original lawsuit on July 31, the same day Texas’s rule took effect. They sought immediate emergency relief, arguing that the rule was unclear, conflicted with federal law, and unfairly burdened interstate commerce.
On August 9, the judge denied the emergency request. According to counsel, the judge was not persuaded that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their vagueness or interstate commerce arguments at that stage. On the federal preemption argument, however, the judge found the emergency showing insufficient and left the core legal question open.
Following that decision, the plaintiffs dropped the interstate commerce argument and focused the amended complaint on two remaining claims: federal preemption and unconstitutional vagueness.
The arguments in the amended complaint
Federal law controls. The plaintiffs argue that Congress specifically removed hemp and its derivatives from the federal Controlled Substances Act and Schedule I, while Texas used its own Controlled Substances Act to place that same category into Texas Schedule I.
Their position is that these classifications directly conflict and that federal law controls. If the court agrees with this claim, counsel explains, there would be no need to decide the remaining claim.
The rule does not give fair warning. If the court instead determines that the federal and state provisions can operate together, the plaintiffs argue that Texas law is unconstitutionally vague.
Their amended complaint points to conflicting treatment of the same products under Texas law: describing hemp-derived THC products as foods rather than controlled substances and expressly excluding them from the definition of a controlled substance, while also listing them in Schedule I.
The plaintiffs argue that nothing in the rule tells retailers, consumers, or law enforcement which provision controls. In their view, this leaves people without clear notice of what conduct is lawful and what constitutes a felony, invites inconsistent enforcement, and violates due process rights.
Who is involved and what the plaintiffs are seeking
Botany Scientifics, a nationwide hemp product distributor based in San Antonio, has joined Monti and Happy Cactus as a plaintiff. Lifted Liquids is no longer a party.
The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the rule is invalid and an order stopping its enforcement. Their request for a declaration addresses the regulation itself, rather than only how it applies to the individual plaintiffs. They are not seeking money damages.
What comes next
Under the schedule provided in counsel’s October 1 update, the defendants’ response to the amended complaint was due October 9, and their response to the summary judgment motion is due October 20, subject to any extensions granted by the court.
The first case-management conference is scheduled for November 4. The parties are expected to submit a proposed case schedule before that conference.
We will continue sharing updates as the case progresses.
This post is based on the October 1, 2026 update prepared by plaintiffs’ counsel: Andrea Steel and Imani Hutty of The Banks Law Firm, P.A.; Jim Thorburn of Thorburn Law Group, LLC; and Susan Burns of S. Burns Legal PLLC.
This update is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. For questions about the litigation or how it may affect your business, consult legal counsel.
