New THC Rules Take Effect July 31. Here’s How Texas Got Here.

Estimated Time to Read: 11 minutes

Beginning July 31, 2026, Texas will begin enforcing new restrictions that fundamentally change the legal landscape for hemp-derived THC products. Although these changes stem from a Texas Supreme Court decision involving administrative rules first adopted in 2021, the larger story is not simply about hemp. It is about how Texas arrived at a substantially more regulated marketplace after the Legislature repeatedly declined to enact similar proposals.

Most coverage of these changes has understandably focused on what happens after July 31. Consumers want to know which products remain legal. Businesses are preparing for new enforcement. Lawmakers and regulators continue to debate whether the rules go far enough, or too far.

Those are important questions, but there is another question Texans should be asking: How did Texas arrive at this point?

Over the past year, lawmakers debated hemp policy during one regular legislative session and two special sessions. None of the Legislature's major proposals ultimately became law. Yet beginning July 31, Texans will nevertheless experience one of the most significant regulatory changes to the hemp marketplace since Texas legalized hemp in 2019. That story extends well beyond THC products.

It raises broader questions about the proper roles of the Legislature, the Governor, and executive agencies in making public policy.

What Actually Changes on July 31?

Beginning July 31, DSHS will begin enforcing controlled-substance definitions that have been tied up in litigation for nearly five years.

In October 2021, DSHS revised Texas' Schedule of Controlled Substances by expanding the definitions of "tetrahydrocannabinanols" and "marihuana extract." Before those revisions could take effect, a Travis County district court issued a temporary injunction in Sky Marketing Corp. v. DSHS, preventing enforcement. That changed on May 1, 2026, when the Texas Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and upheld DSHS's authority. After the Court issued its mandate on June 5, DSHS formally reinstated the 2021 definitions through a July 10 notice in the Texas Register, making them effective July 31.

Practically speaking, hemp-derived intoxicating cannabinoids such as delta-8 THC, delta-10 THC, THCP, and other non-delta-9 THC isomers will no longer be treated as lawful hemp products under Texas's controlled-substances definitions. Consumers will likely see many familiar products disappear from store shelves, while retailers have spent months adjusting inventories and preparing for enforcement.

One important distinction deserves clarification. The July 31 changes involve reinstated controlled-substances definitions first adopted in 2021. They are not the same as DSHS's separate March 2026 consumable-hemp regulations establishing a "Total THC" standard, increased licensing fees, and additional compliance requirements. Those rules remain the subject of ongoing litigation.

Although these two regulatory tracks are often discussed together, they are legally distinct. Confusing them has become one of the most common misunderstandings surrounding Texas hemp policy.

How Texas Got Here

The restrictions taking effect on July 31 are the culmination of more than a year of legislative debate, executive action, administrative rulemaking, and litigation.

During the 89th Regular Legislative Session (2025), Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) prioritized Senate Bill 3 (SB 3), authored by State Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock), which proposed a comprehensive regulatory framework for consumable hemp products. Texas Policy Research (TPR) recommended lawmakers vote NO, concluding that the bill substantially expanded the size and scope of government through new licensing requirements, permitting systems, testing mandates, criminal penalties, enforcement authority, and additional bureaucracy.

Senate Bill 3 ultimately passed the Texas Senate by a vote of 25-6, and the Texas House of Representatives by a vote of 87-54. Governor Greg Abbott (R) vetoed SB 3 on June 22, 2025.

Importantly, the Governor did not reject regulation itself. Instead, he argued the bill would likely be tied up in litigation because of constitutional and federal preemption concerns. In its place, he proposed an alternative regulatory framework that included permitting requirements, mandatory testing, child-resistant packaging, warning labels, age restrictions, excise taxes, local government authority, expanded enforcement, and additional funding for oversight.

The Legislature returned for two special sessions. Texas Policy Research again recommended NO on very similar subsequent legislation like Senate Bill 5 (SB 5) during the First Special Session and Senate Bill 6 (SB 6) during the Second Special Session because each continued relying on broad regulatory expansion rather than narrowly addressing specific public safety concerns.

Neither proposal ultimately became law.

Ordinarily, that would have postponed the debate until the next legislative session. Instead, executive agencies continued moving forward through administrative action following an executive order promulgated by Abbott at the conclusion of the special sessions.

While the courts considered DSHS's authority to reinstate its 2021 controlled-substances definitions, the agency simultaneously adopted separate consumable-hemp regulations implementing many of the concepts debated during the legislative process.

Although these actions followed different legal paths, together they produced a substantially more regulated hemp marketplace.

Why Texas Policy Research Opposed This Approach

Throughout this debate, TPR's position never changed. We opposed Senate Bill 3. We opposed Senate Bill 5. We opposed Senate Bill 6. And we opposed replacing those legislative proposals with an administrative framework that achieves many of the same practical results through executive rulemaking.

Our position was never based on the belief that government should ignore legitimate public safety concerns. Throughout the legislative process and subsequent interim hearings, lawmakers heard credible testimony regarding youth access, misleading packaging, inconsistent labeling, accidental ingestion, impaired driving, and high-potency intoxicating products. Those concerns deserve serious attention.

The disagreement has always been over the appropriate government response.

Rather than narrowly targeting bad actors, each legislative proposal, and ultimately much of the administrative framework that followed, relied on expanding government authority through additional licensing, permitting, inspections, testing, fees, enforcement powers, and regulatory oversight.

Texas Policy Research believes government should intervene only to the extent necessary to address clearly identifiable harms.

Regulation should be narrowly tailored, predictable, and focused on protecting public safety, not constructing expansive regulatory systems that increase compliance costs, reduce consumer choice, and burden every lawful participant in the marketplace because of the actions of a few.

The Precedent Should Concern Texans Beyond the Hemp Debate

Reasonable Texans can disagree about hemp policy. Some will support stricter regulation. Others will favor a freer marketplace. Those debates are healthy and should continue.

The larger question raised by the events of the past year is whether this is how Texas should make public policy.

The Legislature spent months debating three separate bills governing consumable hemp products. Public hearings were held. Amendments were offered. Recorded votes were taken. Ultimately, lawmakers never enacted a comprehensive statewide regulatory framework. Yet beginning July 31, Texans will nevertheless experience sweeping changes to the marketplace through administrative rulemaking and agency action.

To be clear, the Texas Supreme Court concluded DSHS possessed the legal authority to reinstate its 2021 controlled-substances definitions. That answers an important legal question. It does not answer an equally important policy question.

Should executive agencies become the mechanism through which controversial statewide policies are ultimately implemented after the Legislature declines, or fails, to enact them? That question extends far beyond hemp. Today the issue is consumable THC products. Tomorrow it could involve artificial intelligence, occupational licensing, digital privacy, data centers, cryptocurrency, firearm accessories, or any number of other contentious policy issues.

Texas Policy Research has consistently argued that major public policy should be debated, enacted, and held accountable through the legislative process. Administrative agencies play a vital role in implementing laws, but they should not become an alternative venue for resolving controversial policy questions that belong before elected lawmakers.

Beginning July 31, Texans will begin living under a substantially different regulatory framework for hemp-derived THC products. Whether those rules ultimately improve public safety remains to be seen. The more enduring question is whether Texans are comfortable allowing major public policy to migrate from the Legislature to the administrative state.

Whether these regulations ultimately improve public safety remains to be seen. But the process that produced them has already established an important precedent. Texans should carefully consider whether major public policy is best made by the Legislature they elect, or by the administrative agencies that carry out its laws.

---