Texas Governor Greg Abbott has vetoed Senate Bill 3 (SB3), a proposed law aimed at regulating hemp-derived products, citing concerns over its constitutionality and potential conflicts with federal law. The bill, which passed during the 89th Texas Legislative Session, included strict provisions for licensing, sales, and manufacturing of consumable hemp products, especially those containing psychoactive cannabinoids like delta-8 THC.
Governor Abbott’s veto, issued on June 22, 2025, pointed to multiple legal challenges, including a lawsuit already filed in Travis County District Court. He argued that SB3’s restrictions clashed with the 2018 Farm Bill, which federally legalized hemp and its derivatives with less than 0.3% delta-9 THC. Abbott also raised Fifth Amendment concerns about potential government overreach and cited a similar Arkansas law that was blocked by federal courts, suggesting SB3 might face the same fate.
SB3 would have imposed high licensing fees—up to $20,000 annually for retailers—and restricted manufacturing to products containing only CBD and CBG. It also proposed criminal penalties for non-compliance and banned marketing practices seen as appealing to minors. Sales to individuals under 21, near schools, or through delivery services would have been criminalized.
The reaction to Abbott’s veto has been sharply divided. Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick criticized the decision, implying it signaled support for recreational marijuana and expressing concern for families affected by high-potency THC products. In contrast, the Texas Hemp Business Council welcomed the veto, emphasizing the protection of a $4.3 billion industry that employs 53,000 Texans. The veto also followed significant public opposition to SB3, including a petition with over 150,000 signatures and numerous letters to Abbott’s office.
Abbott has called a special legislative session for July to develop a revised regulatory framework, proposing an approach similar to the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission’s oversight of alcohol. This move signals his intent to pursue regulation without provoking lengthy legal battles or risking economic disruption in the state’s hemp sector.
