S-2667-115
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 380.
Sponsored by Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
What it does
This bill would remove industrial hemp — defined as cannabis plants with no more than 0.3% THC — from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, effectively making it a legal agricultural commodity. States and tribal governments could submit production plans to the USDA to regulate hemp farming within their borders. Hemp farmers would also become eligible for federal crop insurance and USDA research grants available to other agricultural producers.
Who benefits
Hemp farmers and agricultural businesses that would gain legal standing, access to federal crop insurance, and research funding. States and tribal governments that would gain authority to create their own hemp regulatory frameworks. Industries that use hemp-derived materials — including textile manufacturers, food producers, construction material suppliers, and personal care product companies. Researchers studying hemp's agricultural and commercial applications. Rural farming communities that could diversify their crops.
Who is hurt
Law enforcement agencies that would lose a legal tool used to prosecute hemp cultivation, which is currently indistinguishable from marijuana without chemical testing. Drug enforcement officials who argue the 0.3% THC threshold is difficult to verify in the field. Existing agricultural producers in competing crop markets (e.g., cotton, flax, soy) who may face new competition. States that prefer federal prohibition to remain in place. Some anti-drug advocacy groups that view any loosening of cannabis-related restrictions as a policy setback.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that industrial hemp is a versatile, economically valuable crop that poses no meaningful drug risk, since its THC content is far too low to produce psychoactive effects. They contend that treating hemp identically to marijuana under federal law has placed American farmers at a competitive disadvantage compared to farmers in Canada, Europe, and other countries where hemp is already legal. Legalizing hemp would open new markets for rural agricultural communities, create jobs across supply chains in textiles, food, construction, and health products, and allow farmers to diversify their income. Supporters also argue that extending crop insurance and research grants to hemp producers simply puts them on equal footing with producers of every other legal crop, correcting an inconsistency in federal agricultural policy.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that removing hemp from Schedule I creates practical enforcement problems because hemp and marijuana plants are visually identical and can only be distinguished through chemical testing, making it harder for law enforcement to detect illegal marijuana cultivation. They contend that the 0.3% THC threshold is an arbitrary standard that could be exploited by bad actors who grow higher-potency plants and claim they are hemp. Some opponents also raise concerns that federal legalization could undermine state laws that still prohibit hemp, and that expanding USDA benefits to a newly legalized crop sets a precedent for extending federal agricultural support to other substances as drug laws evolve. Others argue the regulatory framework delegated to states and tribes lacks sufficient federal oversight to ensure consistent enforcement.
Constitutional context
The bill's primary constitutional basis is the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8), which grants Congress authority to regulate interstate commerce, including agricultural commodities. The Necessary and Proper Clause supports Congress's power to modify the Controlled Substances Act. The Tenth Amendment is relevant because the bill creates a state-opt-in regulatory model, allowing states and tribes to submit their own plans — raising questions about whether federal baseline rules adequately respect state sovereignty. Under Wickard v. Filburn (1942), even locally grown crops can fall under federal commerce power; however, United States v. Lopez (1995) established limits on that reach. Post-Loper Bright (2024), USDA's interpretation of its own plan-approval authority would receive no judicial deference, meaning courts would independently review agency decisions on state hemp plans.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (USDA) would gain new regulatory authority to review and approve state and tribal hemp production plans, expanding agency oversight of an agricultural commodity. Congress would simultaneously reduce the executive branch's (DEA's) enforcement authority by removing hemp from Schedule I. States and tribal governments would gain meaningful concurrent regulatory power through the plan-submission framework, shifting some authority away from the federal government. Post-Loper Bright, federal courts would hold independent review power over USDA's plan-approval decisions without deferring to the agency's own interpretations.
Historical precedent
The 2014 Farm Bill (Sec. 7606) created a limited federal pilot program allowing state agriculture departments and universities to grow hemp for research, representing the first partial federal loosening of hemp restrictions since the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was the original federal restriction on hemp and marijuana cultivation.