U.S. Code » Title 7 » Chapter CHAPTER 38— DISTRIBUTION AND MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER VII— HEMP PRODUCTION

7 U.S.C. § 1639p

State and tribal plans

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Submission(1) In general

A State or Indian tribe desiring to have primary regulatory authority over the production of hemp in the State or territory of the Indian tribe shall submit to the Secretary, through the State department of agriculture (in consultation with the Governor and chief law enforcement officer of the State) or the Tribal government, as applicable, a plan under which the State or Indian tribe monitors and regulates that production as described in paragraph (2).

(2) ContentsA State or Tribal plan referred to in paragraph (1)—(A) shall only be required to include—(i) a practice to maintain relevant information regarding land on which hemp is produced in the State or territory of the Indian tribe, including a legal description of the land, for a period of not less than 3 calendar years;(ii) a procedure for testing, using post-decarboxylation or other similarly reliable methods, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration levels of hemp produced in the State or territory of the Indian tribe;(iii) a procedure for the effective disposal of—(I) plants, whether growing or not, that are produced in violation of this subchapter; and(II) products derived from those plants;(iv) a procedure to comply with the enforcement procedures under subsection (e);(v) a procedure for conducting annual inspections of, at a minimum, a random sample of hemp producers to verify that hemp is not produced in violation of this subchapter;(vi) a procedure for submitting the information described in section 1639q(d)(2) of this title, as applicable, to the Secretary not more than 30 days after the date on which the information is received; and(vii) a certification that the State or Indian tribe has the resources and personnel to carry out the practices and procedures described in clauses (i) through (vi); and(B) may include any other practice or procedure established by a State or Indian tribe, as applicable, to the extent that the practice or procedure is consistent with this subchapter.(3) Relation to State and tribal law(A) No preemptionNothing in this subsection preempts or limits any law of a State or Indian tribe that—(i) regulates the production of hemp; and(ii) is more stringent than this subchapter.(B) References in plans

A State or Tribal plan referred to in paragraph (1) may include a reference to a law of the State or Indian tribe regulating the production of hemp, to the extent that law is consistent with this subchapter.

(b) Approval(1) In generalNot later than 60 days after receipt of a State or Tribal plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—(A) approve the State or Tribal plan if the State or Tribal plan complies with subsection (a); or(B) disapprove the State or Tribal plan only if the State or Tribal plan does not comply with subsection (a).(2) Amended plans

If the Secretary disapproves a State or Tribal plan under paragraph (1)(B), the State, through the State department of agriculture (in consultation with the Governor and chief law enforcement officer of the State) or the Tribal government, as applicable, may submit to the Secretary an amended State or Tribal plan that complies with subsection (a).

(3) Consultation

The Secretary shall consult with the Attorney General in carrying out this subsection.

(c) Audit of State compliance(1) In general

The Secretary may conduct an audit of the compliance of a State or Indian tribe with a State or Tribal plan approved under subsection (b).

(2) NoncomplianceIf the Secretary determines under an audit conducted under paragraph (1) that a State or Indian tribe is not materially in compliance with a State or Tribal plan—(A) the Secretary shall collaborate with the State or Indian tribe to develop a corrective action plan in the case of a first instance of noncompliance; and(B) the Secretary may revoke approval of the State or Tribal plan in the case of a second or subsequent instance of noncompliance.(d) Technical assistance

The Secretary may provide technical assistance to a State or Indian tribe in the development of a State or Tribal plan under subsection (a).

(e) Violations(1) In general

A violation of a State or Tribal plan approved under subsection (b) shall be subject to enforcement solely in accordance with this subsection.

(2) Negligent violation(A) In generalA hemp producer in a State or the territory of an Indian tribe for which a State or Tribal plan is approved under subsection (b) shall be subject to subparagraph (B) of this paragraph if the State department of agriculture or Tribal government, as applicable, determines that the hemp producer has negligently violated the State or Tribal plan, including by negligently—(i) failing to provide a legal description of land on which the producer produces hemp;(ii) failing to obtain a license or other required authorization from the State department of agriculture or Tribal government, as applicable; or(iii) producing Cannabis sativa L. with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.(B) Corrective action planA hemp producer described in subparagraph (A) shall comply with a plan established by the State department of agriculture or Tribal government, as applicable, to correct the negligent violation, including—(i) a reasonable date by which the hemp producer shall correct the negligent violation; and(ii) a requirement that the hemp producer shall periodically report to the State department of agriculture or Tribal government, as applicable, on the compliance of the hemp producer with the State or Tribal plan for a period of not less than the next 2 calendar years.(C) Result of negligent violation

A hemp producer that negligently violates a State or Tribal plan under subparagraph (A) shall not as a result of that violation be subject to any criminal enforcement action by the Federal Government or any State government, Tribal government, or local government.

(D) Repeat violations

A hemp producer that negligently violates a State or Tribal plan under subparagraph (A) 3 times in a 5-year period shall be ineligible to produce hemp for a period of 5 years beginning on the date of the third violation.

(3) Other violations(A) In generalIf the State department of agriculture or Tribal government in a State or the territory of an Indian tribe for which a State or Tribal plan is approved under subsection (b), as applicable, determines that a hemp producer in the State or territory has violated the State or Tribal plan with a culpable mental state greater than negligence—(i) the State department of agriculture or Tribal government, as applicable, shall immediately report the hemp producer to—(I) the Attorney General; and(II) the chief law enforcement officer of the State or Indian tribe, as applicable; and(ii) paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to the violation.(B) Felony(i) In generalExcept as provided in clause (ii), any person convicted of a felony relating to a controlled substance under State or Federal law before, on, or after December 20, 2018, shall be ineligible, during the 10-year period following the date of the conviction—(I) to participate in the program established under this section or section 1639q of this title; and(II) to produce hemp under any regulations or guidelines issued under section 1639r(a) of this title.(ii) Exception

Clause (i) shall not apply to any person growing hemp lawfully with a license, registration, or authorization under a pilot program authorized by section 5940 of this title before December 20, 2018.

(C) False statement

Any person who materially falsifies any information contained in an application to participate in the program established under this section shall be ineligible to participate in that program.

(f) EffectNothing in this section prohibits the production of hemp in a State or the territory of an Indian tribe—(1) for which a State or Tribal plan is not approved under this section, if the production of hemp is in accordance with section 1639q of this title or other Federal laws (including regulations); and(2) if the production of hemp is not otherwise prohibited by the State or Indian tribe.(Aug. 14, 1946, ch. 966, title II, § 297B, as added Pub. L. 115–334, title X, § 10113, Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4909.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 2019–2025 · leading case: C.Y. Wholesale, Inc. v. Eric Holcomb, 965 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
C.Y. Wholesale, Inc. v. Eric Holcomb, 965 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “7 U.S.C. § 1639p (“Nothing in this subsec- tion preempts or limits any law of a State … that regulates the production of hemp and is more stringent than this subchap- ter.”
Bio Gen LLC v. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, 142 F.4th 591 (8th Cir. 2025). · cites it 3× “And to ensure other states do not become a hurdle to an in-state hemp industry (if the state chooses to legalize hemp), the 2018 Farm Bill prevents other states from interfering with the interstate commerce of hemp.”
Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. United States Dep't of Agric., No. 4:19-cv-04094, 2019 WL 2394256 (D.S.D. June 6, 2019). · cites it 8× “7 U.S.C. § 1639p. Known as a “297B plan,” the plan must include seven categories outlined in the statute.”
N. Virginia Hemp & Agric., LLC v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 700 F. Supp. 3d 407 (E.D. Va. 2023). · cites it 7× “See 7 U.S.C. §§ 1639p, 1639q. Although the Farm Act relaxes the federal regulations concerning hemp, it permits states to enact “more stringent” regulations of hemp production than those set out in federal regulations.”
AK Indus. Hemp Ass'n v. Alaska Dep't of Nat. Resources, No. 3:23-cv-00253 (D. Alaska Dec. 27, 2023). · cites it 4× “4490 , 4909-12 (2018) (codified at 7 U.S.C. § 1639p). For ease of reference, the Court cites to the 2018 Farm Bill by using its codified provisions in the United States Code.”
Hemp Quarters 605 LLC v. Noem, No. 3:24-cv-03016 (D.S.D. June 29, 2024). · cites it 4× “See 7 U.S.C. §§ 1639p, 1639q. The State of South Dakota has a USDA- approved “Industrial Hemp Plan.”
United States v. Mallory, 372 F. Supp. 3d 377 (2019). “See 7 U.S.C. § 1639p(a)(1) ("A State ... desiring to have primary regulatory authority over the production of hemp in the State .”
C.Y. Wholesale, Inc. v. Eric Holcomb, No. 19-3034 (7th Cir. July 8, 2020). · cites it 3× “7 U.S.C. § 1639p (“Nothing in this subsec- tion preempts or limits any law of a State … that regulates the production of hemp and is more stringent than this subchap- ter.”
Moore v. Md. Hemp Coalition, 343 A.3d 624 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “7 U.S.C. § 1639p(a)(1). Accordingly, in 2020, the Maryland 6 Department of Agriculture submitted Maryland’s State hemp plan to the USDA.”
Delorean 88 LLC v. Dist. of Columbia, No. 2025-2458 (D.D.C. Oct. 8, 2025). · cites it 3× “7 U.S.C. § 1639p(a)(1). Once a state has such a plan, it can ban hemp production or permit and regulate hemp production.”
Loki Brands LLC v. Platkin, No. 3:24-cv-09389, 2024 WL 4457485 (D.N.J. Oct. 10, 2024). · cites it 2× “More specifically, 7 U.S.C. § 1639p governs the intersection between “hemp” as defined in the Farm Bill and how States and Indian Tribes may regulate hemp.”
N. Virginia Hemp & Agric., LLC v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 125 F.4th 472 (4th Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “30 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2192 Doc: 54 Filed: 01/07/2025 Pg: 31 of 36 7 U.S.C. §1639p(a)(1). 19 By establishing a system by which states can set up detailed plans if they desire “primary regulatory authority over the production of hemp,” Congress left plenty of room for state…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
7 U.S.C. § 1639p(a): 1 case
N. Virginia Hemp & Agric., LLC v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 700 F. Supp. 3d 407 (E.D. Va. 2023). “See 7 U.S.C. §§ 1639p, 1639q. Although the Farm Act relaxes the federal regulations concerning hemp, it permits states to enact “more stringent” regulations of hemp production than those set out in federal regulations.”
7 U.S.C. § 1639p(a)(1): 7 cases
United States v. Mallory, 372 F. Supp. 3d 377 (2019). “See 7 U.S.C. § 1639p(a)(1) ("A State ... desiring to have primary regulatory authority over the production of hemp in the State .”
Moore v. Md. Hemp Coalition, 343 A.3d 624 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2025). “7 U.S.C. § 1639p(a)(1). Accordingly, in 2020, the Maryland 6 Department of Agriculture submitted Maryland’s State hemp plan to the USDA.”
Delorean 88 LLC v. Dist. of Columbia, No. 2025-2458 (D.D.C. Oct. 8, 2025). “7 U.S.C. § 1639p(a)(1). Once a state has such a plan, it can ban hemp production or permit and regulate hemp production.”
Dines v. Kelly, No. 2:22-cv-02248 (D. Kan. Nov. 8, 2022).
United States v. Mallory, No. 3:18-cv-01289 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 6, 2019).
7 U.S.C. § 1639p(a)(3)(A): 6 cases
Bio Gen LLC v. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, 142 F.4th 591 (8th Cir. 2025). “And to ensure other states do not become a hurdle to an in-state hemp industry (if the state chooses to legalize hemp), the 2018 Farm Bill prevents other states from interfering with the interstate commerce of hemp.”
AK Indus. Hemp Ass'n v. Alaska Dep't of Nat. Resources, No. 3:23-cv-00253 (D. Alaska Dec. 27, 2023). “4490 , 4909-12 (2018) (codified at 7 U.S.C. § 1639p). For ease of reference, the Court cites to the 2018 Farm Bill by using its codified provisions in the United States Code.”
Hemp Quarters 605 LLC v. Noem, No. 3:24-cv-03016 (D.S.D. June 29, 2024). “See 7 U.S.C. §§ 1639p, 1639q. The State of South Dakota has a USDA- approved “Industrial Hemp Plan.”
N. Virginia Hemp & Agric., LLC v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 700 F. Supp. 3d 407 (E.D. Va. 2023). “See 7 U.S.C. §§ 1639p, 1639q. Although the Farm Act relaxes the federal regulations concerning hemp, it permits states to enact “more stringent” regulations of hemp production than those set out in federal regulations.”
N. Virginia Hemp & Agric., LLC v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 125 F.4th 472 (4th Cir. 2025). “30 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2192 Doc: 54 Filed: 01/07/2025 Pg: 31 of 36 7 U.S.C. §1639p(a)(1). 19 By establishing a system by which states can set up detailed plans if they desire “primary regulatory authority over the production of hemp,” Congress left plenty of room for state…”
7 U.S.C. § 1639p(b)(1): 1 case
Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. United States Dep't of Agric., No. 4:19-cv-04094, 2019 WL 2394256 (D.S.D. June 6, 2019). “7 U.S.C. § 1639p. Known as a “297B plan,” the plan must include seven categories outlined in the statute.”
7 U.S.C. § 1639p(f): 2 cases
Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. United States Dep't of Agric., No. 4:19-cv-04094, 2019 WL 2394256 (D.S.D. June 6, 2019). “7 U.S.C. § 1639p. Known as a “297B plan,” the plan must include seven categories outlined in the statute.”
Moore v. Md. Hemp Coalition, 343 A.3d 624 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2025). “7 U.S.C. § 1639p(a)(1). Accordingly, in 2020, the Maryland 6 Department of Agriculture submitted Maryland’s State hemp plan to the USDA.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.