Hemp Companies Fight DEA in Two Circuits Over HHC's Schedule I Status
Photo: Acroterion / Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Two hemp companies are actively fighting the Drug Enforcement Administration in federal appeals court over the agency's move to list hexahydrocannabinol, or HHC, as a Schedule I controlled substance. The companies have asked the Fourth and Ninth Circuits to block the rule while their challenges proceed, and the DEA filed briefs this week opposing those requests. The dispute centers on whether cannabinoids made by chemically converting hemp are legal, and the answer could reach far beyond HHC.
The DEA's rule assigns HHC a separate Schedule I drug code. The agency frames the change as administrative, stating that HHC has long been controlled as a tetrahydrocannabinol and that the listing alters nothing about its status. In the rule, the DEA says only tetrahydrocannabinols in or derived from the cannabis plant are excluded from control as hemp, and that tetrahydrocannabinols produced through chemical conversion, even when hemp derived, are treated as synthetically produced and do not qualify. The agency invoked good cause to skip notice and comment and made the rule effective on publication.
The two companies disagree and have asked federal appeals courts to step in. IHC Investments filed in the Ninth Circuit and Bluestar Operations filed in the Fourth Circuit, each seeking review of the rule and a stay to block it while the case proceeds. They argue the DEA expanded federal criminal liability through interpretation rather than statute, that Congress did not prohibit converted or hydrogenated cannabinoids, and that the action raises a major question requiring clear congressional authorization. Bluestar cites the Fourth Circuit's prior ruling that hemp-derived THC-O-acetate is legal, and IHC points to the Ninth Circuit's holding that delta-8 qualifies as legal hemp.
This week the DEA filed briefs opposing the stays, arguing the companies cannot show a stay is warranted because HHC remains Schedule I with or without the new listing, so the rule itself changes nothing about their legal exposure. Bluestar filed a reply contending the agency cannot call the rule a harmless technical amendment while also arguing the company has no standing to challenge it. The stay requests are pending in both circuits.
HHC is sold in smoke shops, vape shops, and gas stations nationwide, often made by hydrogenating CBD, and the rule places it explicitly in Schedule I alongside other controlled substances.
The immediate stakes are the pending stay motions, which will determine whether the listing is paused while the courts review it. The broader stakes are larger, because the DEA's position is that any cannabinoid made by chemically converting hemp is synthetic and therefore controlled, a reading that would extend to delta-8, THC-O, and THCP, which are also widely sold and also made through conversion. The companies argue federal appeals courts have already rejected that reading. Separately, a federal change takes effect November 12, 2026 that limits legal hemp products to no more than 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container, which would independently affect many of these products regardless of how the HHC cases are resolved.