[00:00:01] Speaker 00:
We'll now hear 24-8053 and 8054, Green Room versus State of Wyoming.

[00:00:20] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:00:20] Speaker 00:
Dimantos, when you're ready.

[00:00:33] Speaker 03:
May it please the court?

[00:00:37] Speaker 03:
Council?

[00:00:39] Speaker 03:
First, I would like to address that we would like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:44] Speaker 03:
And then I would also like to address that we did file a motion to supplement the record.

[00:00:49] Speaker 03:
And after reading the state's response, we withdraw that motion.

[00:00:55] Speaker 03:
So for the record, my name is Donna Demakis.

[00:00:58] Speaker 03:
I am here today on behalf of my clients, the appellants, and I won't list all of them.

[00:01:03] Speaker 03:
But the appellants are a group of store owners, business owners, who relied on the state of Wyoming's enactment of legislation that established a hemp marketplace in Wyoming.

[00:01:18] Speaker 03:
The appellants' businesses conform to the federal guidelines of the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bill.

[00:01:27] Speaker 03:
In that Farm Bill, there is a definition of hemp, and that is the main focus

[00:01:33] Speaker 03:
of this litigation.

[00:01:36] Speaker 03:
Because in 2024, the state passed Senate Enrolled Act 24, and this legislation restricts the appellant's ability to sell, produce, and grow hemp in Wyoming.

[00:01:53] Speaker 03:
The legislation changed the federal definition of hemp and criminalized the possession of what would be

[00:02:02] Speaker 03:
legalized federally legalized hemp.

[00:02:06] Speaker 00:
Well that's, legalized is probably not the right word.

[00:02:10] Speaker 00:
They just said it's not illegal under federal law.

[00:02:16] Speaker 03:
When they passed the Farm Bill, it took it out, they specifically said they were taking it out of the controlled substance.

[00:02:25] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:02:25] Speaker 03:
And they also took it to the jurisdiction over those matters and put it with the Department of Agriculture instead of with

[00:02:33] Speaker 03:
the Department of Justice, I guess, but they did criminalize it because if you have this now, this kind of hemp in Wyoming, as defined by Wyoming, it is now back in as a controlled one, substance, and it is now illegal.

[00:02:53] Speaker 00:
Under state law.

[00:02:54] Speaker 03:
Under state law.

[00:02:55] Speaker 00:
There's a difference.

[00:02:57] Speaker 00:
The states can legalize marijuana for their own purposes, but the federal government can still prosecute and vice versa, although the federal government may be able to preempt state laws.

[00:03:12] Speaker 00:
And that's the issue.

[00:03:13] Speaker 00:
That is the issue.

[00:03:14] Speaker 00:
But it's not that the federal government legalized it.

[00:03:17] Speaker 00:
Maybe it prohibited certain things from the states.

[00:03:22] Speaker 00:
avoid language that I think is confusing.

[00:03:28] Speaker 03:
Well, and I think that I understand what you're saying there, because when we talk about what has happened with the Senate Enrolled Act, it makes the possession of this hemp that they have now said is not included in the federal definition of hemp.

[00:03:50] Speaker 03:
And it makes that part illegal.

[00:03:54] Speaker 03:
And so that's where it recriminalizes part of him.

[00:03:58] Speaker 04:
And we are... I'm sorry?

[00:04:00] Speaker 04:
Well, in the Farm Bill, the Federal Act, it very clearly and expressly states nothing

[00:04:10] Speaker 04:
in the bill preempts or limits any law of a state or Indian tribe that regulates production of hemp in a manner more stringent than this bill.

[00:04:21] Speaker 04:
Shouldn't we take Congress at its word that it did not limit Wyoming's ability to restrict marijuana more stringently than the federal law?

[00:04:34] Speaker 03:
And what it does say, and we take every word, we give every word meaning, they said the regulation, and I'm going to get the... Regulating hemp.

[00:04:51] Speaker 04:
Regulates the production of hemp in a manner more stringent than this bill.

[00:04:55] Speaker 03:
And that's talking about the production of hemp, not the sale of hemp, and not what can actually be possessed in Wyoming.

[00:05:05] Speaker 03:
And so when we are talking about the regulation, they are saying that when they come in and they say, OK, guess what?

[00:05:13] Speaker 03:
Wyoming, you can start selling him.

[00:05:16] Speaker 03:
But you have to follow these rules.

[00:05:19] Speaker 03:
And that's what Wyoming did when they first started this.

[00:05:22] Speaker 03:
They came up with their rules.

[00:05:24] Speaker 03:
But they cannot come up with rules that

[00:05:29] Speaker 03:
They can come up with rules that are more stringent as far as the production of the hemp.

[00:05:33] Speaker 00:
And you think that implicitly means you can't say anything more stringent, can't impose anything more stringent with respect to sale or possession?

[00:05:41] Speaker 00:
Is that what you're saying?

[00:05:42] Speaker 03:
I am saying that they can't change, they can't change the definition of hemp.

[00:05:49] Speaker 03:
Because the definition of hemp has already been outlined in the federal bill.

[00:05:54] Speaker 00:
For purposes of federal law.

[00:05:57] Speaker 03:
Yes, for federal law.

[00:05:58] Speaker 04:
I mean, you know, maybe it's confusing, but the way it works is we have state and federal law, and in many instances, the federal government does not preempt the entire field, and the state is able to regulate differently and separately than the federal government.

[00:06:24] Speaker 04:
You know, look at, let's use California as an example.

[00:06:28] Speaker 04:
on air emissions.

[00:06:30] Speaker 04:
They were the first ones to require a catalytic converter on a car, even though the federal government, EPA, didn't require it.

[00:06:39] Speaker 04:
They were allowed to do that.

[00:06:42] Speaker 04:
The same is true here, particularly where the statute says we're not preempting the field.

[00:06:51] Speaker 03:
of the production.

[00:06:52] Speaker 04:
Where do you get of the production?

[00:06:55] Speaker 04:
Point me to language in the farm bill that says we are not preempting except for with respect to sales and possession.

[00:07:09] Speaker 04:
And we're going to preempt sales and possession.

[00:07:14] Speaker 03:
It does not say that.

[00:07:15] Speaker 03:
I admit that.

[00:07:16] Speaker 04:
They help me out with the language of the bill and show me where your clients have a private right of action.

[00:07:22] Speaker 03:
Okay, the private right of action happens and the case that the district court relied upon and they were talking about these people came in there and I think it was Colorado said there is no private right of action under this bill.

[00:07:40] Speaker 03:
But we are coming in here and saying that what Wyoming has done is unconstitutional because of the change.

[00:07:47] Speaker 04:
Wait, so you're saying the state of Wyoming created a private right of action under the federal farm bill?

[00:07:55] Speaker 03:
No, no, that's not what I'm saying.

[00:07:58] Speaker 03:
I am saying, and I'm turning to it right here, I am saying that

[00:08:03] Speaker 03:
a federal statutory right or right of action is not required where a party seeks to enjoin the enforcement of a regulation on the grounds that the local ordinance is preempted by federal law.

[00:08:18] Speaker 03:
And we're saying that this ordinance has been preempted by federal law and therefore... And it's been preempted

[00:08:28] Speaker 04:
because you read the we aren't preempting language as being limited to production.

[00:08:35] Speaker 04:
Okay, and you're going to show me where in the farm bill I can read that and clearly ascertain that it's not preempting with respect to possession and sale.

[00:08:49] Speaker 03:
Okay, the actual language that we have that they are talking about,

[00:08:55] Speaker 03:
And I apologize, I have too many notes here.

[00:09:04] Speaker 04:
Is it where they talk about licenses for growing hemp?

[00:09:08] Speaker 04:
Is that what you're talking about?

[00:09:09] Speaker 04:
That was in your brief.

[00:09:13] Speaker 03:
Well, when they were talking about the licensing, they did say that the states could come up with the regulations, OK?

[00:09:23] Speaker 04:
says if the production of hemp is not otherwise prohibited by the state, then the state should give you a license, right?

[00:09:32] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:09:33] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:09:34] Speaker 03:
And so that's what Wyoming did.

[00:09:37] Speaker 03:
They said, OK, you can get this license.

[00:09:39] Speaker 03:
They allowed these people.

[00:09:40] Speaker 04:
And then they amended their laws and said, we're not going to allow it anymore for some expanded definition of marijuana, right?

[00:09:50] Speaker 03:
Of hemp, yes.

[00:09:52] Speaker 03:
Yes, exactly.

[00:09:53] Speaker 04:
And how does that give you a federal right based on what Wyoming did?

[00:10:00] Speaker 03:
Based on what Wyoming did because of the language that they came up with in an area of law that has been preempted by the federal government.

[00:10:08] Speaker 03:
We are saying that the federal government has come out and said, this is the definition of imp.

[00:10:15] Speaker 04:
And if I don't agree with you that the federal government preempted

[00:10:21] Speaker 04:
the definition of hemp, then you would lose, right?

[00:10:27] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:10:27] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:10:27] Speaker 04:
Good.

[00:10:28] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:10:33] Speaker 03:
Now one of the things I do want to bring up though is that we do have to try to take a look at what the Congress's intent was.

[00:10:43] Speaker 03:
And the intent of the entire bill is to create this marketplace for hemp.

[00:10:52] Speaker 03:
They have stated that the states are authorized to put more restrictive parameters on the production of hemp.

[00:11:02] Speaker 03:
But that does not mean that they are authorized to alter the definition of hemp or put in place policies that are less restrictive.

[00:11:10] Speaker 03:
And this intent works both ways, because this means that Wyoming can't come in there and say, OK, well, we're going to change hemp to say that it can be not 0.3%

[00:11:22] Speaker 03:
but as long as it doesn't have THC over 3.0%.

[00:11:29] Speaker 03:
And because Congress has limited this, they have come up with this non-arbitrary level of the amount of THC that can be present.

[00:11:41] Speaker 03:
Not only can they not make it more restrictive, but they also can't make it less restrictive.

[00:11:46] Speaker 04:
Can you, you still haven't pointed me to the exact language in the 2018 Farm Bill that you think limits the non-preemption language to only production?

[00:12:04] Speaker 03:
It says subsection.

[00:12:06] Speaker 03:
What are you wearing?

[00:12:08] Speaker 03:
Subsection, which, no, I apologize, I should have.

[00:12:13] Speaker 03:
written that one down, 7 USC section 16390.

[00:12:21] Speaker 03:
Is that O maybe?

[00:12:27] Speaker 03:
Well, I apologize.

[00:12:30] Speaker 03:
No, I know that it does say that it just applies to, specifically states there's no preemption or limiting applies to laws that more stringently regulate the production of hemp.

[00:12:42] Speaker 00:
That's in there.

[00:12:44] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:12:44] Speaker 03:
And that is what we're saying.

[00:12:46] Speaker 03:
It only applies to the production of hemp, as far as what the states are doing.

[00:12:52] Speaker 00:
Well, that's pretty implicit.

[00:12:55] Speaker 00:
I mean, they're particularly, since they're focused on production in the federal statute, they're saying this doesn't preempt state restrictions on preemption.

[00:13:07] Speaker 00:
I don't think that implies that it does preempt

[00:13:09] Speaker 00:
necessarily implies that it does preempt state restrictions on sale.

[00:13:16] Speaker 00:
You're drawing an inference there.

[00:13:19] Speaker 00:
It's not a stupid inference, but I'm not sure it's a persuasive one.

[00:13:23] Speaker 03:
Well, I think we have to take a look at what the congressional intent was.

[00:13:27] Speaker 03:
And that's why we've referred to... Well, we look to their language.

[00:13:29] Speaker 00:
Yeah, go ahead.

[00:13:30] Speaker 03:
Yeah, we referred to the conference report for the 2018 Farm Bill.

[00:13:35] Speaker 03:
And it states that states are authorized to put more restrictive parameters on the production of him, but are not authorized to alter the definition of him or put in place policies that are less restrictive.

[00:13:55] Speaker 03:
And that's why I'm saying the intent goes both ways as far as... There was something strange about that report.

[00:14:00] Speaker 00:
I can't remember, but it's not really the conference report.

[00:14:05] Speaker 00:
But I'll look into that later.

[00:14:07] Speaker 00:
There was something about that.

[00:14:09] Speaker 00:
One of the other circuits that addressed this pointed this out.

[00:14:15] Speaker 00:
Anyway, I shouldn't take your time on that.

[00:14:18] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:14:20] Speaker 03:
So basically we are saying, yes, that this area of hemp law has been preempted by federal law and that the states are not allowed to go in there

[00:14:35] Speaker 03:
and change that definition of him.

[00:14:38] Speaker 03:
And that is what they did.

[00:14:38] Speaker 03:
They changed the definition of him.

[00:14:41] Speaker 00:
You're down to 40 seconds now.

[00:14:43] Speaker 00:
Do you want to keep talking and reserve some or not?

[00:14:47] Speaker 03:
Oh my gosh.

[00:14:52] Speaker 03:
I think I want to continue on this one, OK?

[00:14:54] Speaker 03:
Because we did have other issues as to why this statute is unconstitutional.

[00:15:00] Speaker 03:
And another reason, and I'd like to touch on,

[00:15:03] Speaker 03:
It's void for vagueness.

[00:15:06] Speaker 03:
Because if you take a look at other Wyoming statutes, they actually talk about synthetic substances.

[00:15:16] Speaker 03:
It's hard to say right now.

[00:15:18] Speaker 03:
And on those, in another statute under the DUI statute, they do define that more clearly as to what that synthetic substance is.

[00:15:29] Speaker 03:
And that means that it must be a substance that can alter the mind.

[00:15:34] Speaker 03:
and cause impairment.

[00:15:39] Speaker 00:
Your time is up.

[00:15:40] Speaker 03:
Okay, thank you.

[00:15:50] Speaker 01:
May it please the Court and Council?

[00:15:52] Speaker 01:
My name is Jonathan Sater with the Wyoming Attorney General's Office here on behalf of Attorney General Hill and Director Miyamoto from the Wyoming Department of Agriculture.

[00:16:00] Speaker 01:
I'll refer to them collectively as Attorney General Hill and to the appellants collectively as Green Room.

[00:16:07] Speaker 01:
Despite Greenroom's attempt to improperly relitigate the proceedings below in this Court, the matter before the Court here today is whether Greenroom has shown that the District Court erred when it granted the dismissal pursuant to Rule 12b6.

[00:16:21] Speaker 01:
Furthermore, their briefs inappropriately cite evidence and factual assertions that are not in the four corners of their complaint.

[00:16:30] Speaker 01:
Additionally, because the District Court dismissed the case,

[00:16:33] Speaker 01:
The appeal of the order denying preliminary injunctive relief is moot and should be dismissed as well.

[00:16:39] Speaker 01:
Now, you guys were talking about the preemption claim.

[00:16:42] Speaker 01:
But we still have the permanent injunction, right?

[00:16:46] Speaker 01:
There was no motion for permanent injunction in this case because there was just the motion for temporary restricting order of preliminary injunction.

[00:16:53] Speaker 00:
Oh, OK.

[00:16:53] Speaker 00:
And you're saying the TRO is not before us because of the temporary, because of the preliminary injunction.

[00:17:01] Speaker 04:
No, Your Honor, the motion- 12B6.

[00:17:04] Speaker 00:
They were all dismissed under 12B6, so there's- So that was a dismissal, but the 12B6 complaint raised one of the remedies they wanted was a permanent injunction, no?

[00:17:16] Speaker 01:
No, there was no permanent injunction of issue in this case, Your Honor.

[00:17:19] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:17:20] Speaker 01:
So, you know, first there was the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that was denied, and then shortly thereafter, after an appeal was filed of that order, the district court dismissed or sent rule 12b6.

[00:17:33] Speaker 04:
Let me focus you on our preemption discussion.

[00:17:37] Speaker 04:
Do you agree that the language in the farm bill that indicates it is not preempting state law

[00:17:47] Speaker 04:
is limited to the production of hemp.

[00:17:53] Speaker 01:
The language of the statute is focused on the production aspect of hemp, but because it doesn't speak to the other aspects of regulation of hemp and also explicitly says that states are free to more stringently regulate

[00:18:06] Speaker 01:
Those other aspects are free for the states to more freely regulate.

[00:18:11] Speaker 01:
And this was just recently recognized in the Fourth Circuit in the case of Northern Virginia hemp and agriculture LLC versus Virginia, where the court stated, quote, Congress was clear, despite the 2018 farm bill, the states retain a significant role in the regulation of hemp.

[00:18:28] Speaker 01:
Do you have the site to that?

[00:18:29] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor, that's 125 at 4th at 495.

[00:18:36] Speaker 01:
Furthermore, this court has also held in serenity on the police department that there's no private cause of action or private hemp under the 2018 Farm Bill, the same provisions that we're addressing here today.

[00:18:50] Speaker 01:
Those are the prerequisites that must be established in order for a plaintiff to bring a Section 1983 claim or for equitable relief, which the Green Room did pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

[00:19:02] Speaker 01:
Section 2201.

[00:19:05] Speaker 00:
For 1983, yes, but not for an equitable claim.

[00:19:09] Speaker 01:
Well, Your Honor, in Safe Streets Alliance versus Hickenlooper, the language in that case suggests that also for an equitable claim for relief, that there also needs to be a substantive federal right.

[00:19:22] Speaker 01:
Granted, that wouldn't be necessary.

[00:19:24] Speaker 00:
Well, the Supreme Court doesn't seem to think that.

[00:19:28] Speaker 00:
After that, Murphy versus NCAA, are you familiar with that case?

[00:19:32] Speaker 00:
Hello, Your Honor.

[00:19:34] Speaker 00:
There was no private cause of action there.

[00:19:38] Speaker 00:
There was no substantive right.

[00:19:40] Speaker 00:
But the court considered the equitable claim and granted relief, actually.

[00:19:49] Speaker 00:
No, I can't remember which way they came, but they addressed the claim for equitable relief.

[00:19:55] Speaker 00:
which confirmed my dissent in the case you cited.

[00:19:59] Speaker 02:
There is a request for a permanent injunction in the complaint.

[00:20:03] Speaker 01:
Yes, in the complaint, Your Honor.

[00:20:04] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:20:07] Speaker 01:
But we never got to the merits of the case because it was dismissed under 12b-6.

[00:20:15] Speaker 01:
So at best, though, Green Room's attempt to try and assert a substantive federal right

[00:20:21] Speaker 01:
is that there's a constitutional property right to hemp, but they didn't identify any provision in the Constitution or any other authority that supports that assertion.

[00:20:29] Speaker 00:
You're still arguing that there's no substantive right here, and therefore they can't even bring in an equitable claim.

[00:20:34] Speaker 00:
Is that right?

[00:20:35] Speaker 01:
Is that part of your... That is the argument, Your Honor.

[00:20:38] Speaker 01:
You know, I'd have to go back and look more closely at the Murphy case that you cited to further expand on that.

[00:20:45] Speaker 01:
But they still have to establish

[00:20:50] Speaker 01:
That aspect of it is our argument today.

[00:20:53] Speaker 00:
I think all they have to do is say that the state law is preempted by federal law and they can bring an actual claim.

[00:20:59] Speaker 00:
They don't need to show that the federal law creates a private right of action.

[00:21:05] Speaker 00:
I think you'll find that if that were the law, then Murphy could not have been heard by the Supreme Court.

[00:21:15] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:21:15] Speaker 04:
But your position is that it is not preempted.

[00:21:20] Speaker 01:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:21:22] Speaker 04:
Turning to the dormant commerce clause, is there any way in which the Wyoming statute penalizes out-of-state producers of hemp worse than in-state producers of hemp or favors in-state over out-of-state?

[00:21:45] Speaker 01:
No, Your Honor.

[00:21:46] Speaker 01:
In fact, if anything, it's more strict on Wyoming producers than it is on out-of-state producers.

[00:21:50] Speaker 01:
But there's nothing explicitly in the language of Wyoming's hemp statutes that discriminates against out-of-state producers or persons possessing it.

[00:22:00] Speaker 02:
It does preempt transportation, though, doesn't it, of hemp?

[00:22:08] Speaker 02:
Yes, the Farm Bill does preempt with regard to transportation of federal hemp.

[00:22:18] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry, I can't hear you, Your Honor.

[00:22:19] Speaker 02:
Would that give them some equitable right then to seek, at least with respect to transportation, as preempted?

[00:22:25] Speaker 01:
Not here, Your Honor, because they haven't even pled that aspect of the statute in their complaint.

[00:22:30] Speaker 02:
Do they need to?

[00:22:32] Speaker 02:
They would need to, and also that they're all- Why would they need to if they ask for equitable relief and they said it was preempted, maybe not what specific aspect is preempted?

[00:22:47] Speaker 01:
Well, because all the plaintiffs are Wyoming residents and businesses, in order to get permanent injunctive relief, they would have to be without the state and transporting it through the state in order to allege a claim under that aspect of the farm bill, which does prevent the state law.

[00:23:08] Speaker 04:
Can I turn you to the unconstitutionally vague argument?

[00:23:16] Speaker 04:
One of the problems that I had with the district court's analysis of that is that the district court used an as applied

[00:23:25] Speaker 04:
framework for looking at this, but this bill had never been applied.

[00:23:32] Speaker 04:
And don't we have, isn't there case law and precedent that tells us that in a situation where the law has never been applied, that you've got to do a facial review of vagueness?

[00:23:48] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, I'm not familiar with the case law that says that point, but we would still assert that regardless of what standard you applied, whether it was the facial challenge or the as applied standard, that they still haven't brought a valid void for vagueness claim or an overbreath claim.

[00:24:06] Speaker 04:
Well, it's easier for you if it's a facial claim, isn't it?

[00:24:10] Speaker 04:
Because if there's any

[00:24:12] Speaker 04:
if there's any application that isn't vague, then we would uphold it, right?

[00:24:17] Speaker 01:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:24:19] Speaker 01:
So the district court applied the lower standard to give Green Room an even greater chance of clearing that threshold, and they failed to even clear that threshold.

[00:24:30] Speaker 01:
And in their arguments on appeal, the only authority that they signed is just a general explanation of the void for vagueness doctrine in the United States versus Lesch.

[00:24:39] Speaker 01:
And beyond that, they provide no other analysis or authority to back up their claim on appeal.

[00:24:48] Speaker 01:
In fact, their so-called void for vagueness claim consists of five number paragraphs in the complaint.

[00:24:53] Speaker 01:
But the allegations in those paragraphs are precisely the type of labels, legal conclusions, and formulaic recitations of the elements that are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

[00:25:05] Speaker 01:
Now, on the overbreath side of things,

[00:25:08] Speaker 01:
Courts have traditionally viewed the vagueness and over-breath as logically related in similar doctrines, but for both of those, the first task is to determine whether the enactment reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct.

[00:25:23] Speaker 01:
With respect to an over-breath challenge, a plaintiff must show that the over-breath of a statute not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.

[00:25:34] Speaker 01:
So even if this was viewed as an overbreath claim, it similarly cannot survive the Rule 12b6 challenge.

[00:25:41] Speaker 01:
First, Green Room did not assert that Act 24 is so unclear that it will likely be enforced in an overbroad manner.

[00:25:47] Speaker 01:
And second, Green Room has not identified any constitutionally protected conduct that may be reached due to the reportedly unclear nature of Act 24.

[00:25:55] Speaker 01:
Green Room basically just calls Act 24 overbroad because it believes the legislation bans substances that Green Room believes should not be prohibited.

[00:26:04] Speaker 01:
But Green Room does not have a right, constitutional or otherwise to Hemp or Hemp-derived products.

[00:26:10] Speaker 01:
Therefore, they have failed to state a plausible claim that Act 24 is either unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, and the District Court properly dismissed that claim under 12b6.

[00:26:22] Speaker 01:
The other claim that we haven't addressed yet is a takings claim, but we would continue to maintain that this claim was never properly brought and shouldn't have been considered by the District Court because it was not alleged in the complaint.

[00:26:34] Speaker 01:
It was only made in the motion for temporary restraining order.

[00:26:38] Speaker 01:
But if the Court disagrees, we would still contend that the District Court properly determined that Green Room's allegations in the motion for temporary restraining order were insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief under the 5th and 14th Amendments.

[00:26:53] Speaker 01:
Here, Act 24 does not take any property from Green Room for public use, nor regulate it to the point that a taking has occurred.

[00:27:00] Speaker 01:
What it does is prohibit certain substances that Wyoming has deemed harmful to the health, morals, and safety of Wyoming citizens.

[00:27:07] Speaker 00:
Why is that not a taking?

[00:27:12] Speaker 00:
Because there's no use for it anymore.

[00:27:13] Speaker 00:
They can't produce this product.

[00:27:17] Speaker 00:
Why haven't they taken that product from the plaintiff?

[00:27:20] Speaker 01:
Well, the state hasn't seized it in this matter.

[00:27:24] Speaker 01:
They've just outlawed it.

[00:27:25] Speaker 01:
So there's been no physical appropriation.

[00:27:27] Speaker 01:
It's not being taken for public use.

[00:27:30] Speaker 01:
Additionally, there's not been a regulation that completely deprives them of all economically beneficial use.

[00:27:38] Speaker 01:
They can still grow hemp, they can still process hemp within the boundaries of what Act 24 allows.

[00:27:45] Speaker 01:
There are just certain substances that the state of Wyoming has determined are inappropriate for the community based on health morals and safety, which it's clearly allowed to do under controlling precedent.

[00:28:00] Speaker 01:
In the Ninth Circuit, there was a case of Duncan versus Bonta, which noted that, quote, nothing in the case law suggests that any time a state adds to its list of contraband, for example, by adding a drug to its schedule of controlled substances, it must pay all owners for the newly prescribed item, end quote.

[00:28:19] Speaker 01:
Adding substances to a schedule of controlled substances is exactly what Wyoming did here.

[00:28:24] Speaker 01:
Thus, there's no taking.

[00:28:26] Speaker 01:
And Green Room points to only one case in their argument on appeal,

[00:28:30] Speaker 01:
On this point, and that actually works against them and supports our position, that case support Working Animals Inc.

[00:28:36] Speaker 01:
versus DeSantis in the northern district of Florida, the court likewise dismissed the claim in that case on 12b6 grounds.

[00:28:46] Speaker 01:
Consequently, Greenroom has failed to show that the district court erred when it dismissed its complaint under Rule 12b6.

[00:28:54] Speaker 04:
And if we agree with you on that, we need not reach the injunction.

[00:29:00] Speaker 01:
TRO the preliminary injunction that's correct your honor, but we would also contend that even if you disagree that you still would need to reach that because that Appeal has been noted by the dismissal and therefore you don't have jurisdiction over any longer Thank you your honors, thank you Cases submitted council excused court will be in recess until 830 tomorrow morning