The Attorney General’s Office Just Lied About Our Case—Here’s What Actually Happened
Why Hawaii’s Attorney General Is Wrong About “Prevailing” — and How the 2018 Farm Bill, Federal Preemption, and Due Process Are at the Center of This Hemp Lawsuit
Law360 covered our lawsuit last week. Buried in the article is a quote from the Attorney General’s office that demands a response.
“This is not the first time these plaintiffs have filed this complaint. The department of the attorney general prevailed in the prior case.”
That’s not just misleading. It’s a flat lie!
What Actually Happened
Yes, we filed a previous case. The judge dismissed it—but not because the state “prevailed.” The judge dismissed it without prejudice specifically so we could refile with more precision about how the state’s definition and enforcement scheme violates federal law.
Here’s what the Attorney General’s office conveniently forgot to mention: They asked the judge to dismiss our case WITH prejudice—meaning we could never refile it. The judge refused. Instead, the court dismissed the case without prejudice, explicitly allowing us to come back with a more focused complaint.
That’s not vindication. That’s the opposite.
The court gave us a roadmap. We followed it. We filed a stronger, more precise complaint that directly addresses the constitutional problems with Hawaii’s approach.
Why This Matters
When government lawyers misrepresent court outcomes to the press, it’s not just bad form—it erodes public trust.
The Attorney General’s office knows the difference between dismissal with prejudice and without prejudice. They know what it means when a court refuses their request to bar refiling. They know that “prevailed” suggests they won on the merits, when in reality the court simply asked us to be more specific.
They said it anyway.
The Real Story
Our original complaint raised legitimate constitutional questions. The court didn’t reject those questions—it asked us to sharpen them.
So we did.
The new complaint is more detailed, more precise, and more focused on exactly how Hawaii’s post-decarboxylation testing standard conflicts with federal law, exceeds statutory authority, burdens interstate commerce, and denies due process.
We clarified how the state converts THCA into delta-9 THC through administrative formulas not found in statute. We detailed how Act 269 escalated from administrative regulation to criminal enforcement. We explained how the seizure and forfeiture provisions operate without adequate pre-deprivation process.
That’s not refiling the same case. That’s doing exactly what the court invited us to do.
What “Prevailed” Actually Means
In legal terms, prevailing means winning on the merits. It means the court agreed with your argument and rejected the other side’s claims.
That didn’t happen.
What happened is procedural housekeeping. The court gave us an opportunity to clarify our claims, and we took it.
If the Attorney General’s office actually believed they “prevailed,” they wouldn’t have asked the judge to dismiss with prejudice. You only ask for that when you’re worried the other side will come back stronger.
We did.
Moving Forward
I’m not interested in a media fight with the state. I’m interested in constitutional questions being answered correctly.
But when the Attorney General’s office distorts the record to make it sound like they already won a case they haven’t even answered yet, someone needs to set it straight.
We’re not refiling because we’re stubborn. We’re refiling because the court told us to clarify our claims and come back.
We clarified them. We came back.
Now let’s see if the state can defend criminalizing federally legal conduct on the merits—instead of through press statements that misrepresent what actually happened in court!