Kansas Hemp-Shop Lawsuits — Hanging Leaf, Indy Vapes, Abilene Vape

Last verified: May 2026

The Hanging Leaf Injunction (Dec 15, 2025)

The McPherson CBD store Hanging Leaf, owned by Mike Ballinger, was raided in the October 1–2, 2025 KBI operation. On December 15, 2025, Ballinger filed for a court injunction in McPherson County District Court.

The injunction filing represents the first major legal challenge to the Kobach / Mattivi enforcement theory that "total THC" inclusive of THCA renders most Kansas hemp products unlawful.

Counsel: Barry Grissom

Hanging Leaf is represented by former U.S. Attorney for Kansas Barry Grissom at the Grissom Miller Law Firm (Kansas City, Missouri). Grissom served as U.S. Attorney for the District of Kansas during the Obama administration. His involvement adds substantial federal-prosecutor expertise to the defense bar; his prior position gives him credibility on Fourth Amendment and federal-state-law-interaction questions that shape these cases.

The Substantive Argument

The injunction filing argues that:

• Hanging Leaf’s products were federally compliant hemp under the 2018 Farm Bill (delta-9 below 0.3% by dry weight at point of sale).
• The Kansas state-level "total THC" inclusive-of-THCA reinterpretation contradicts the federal Farm Bill’s plain language.
• The KBI raids therefore violated federal preemption.
• Inventory and cash seized must be returned; further enforcement against Hanging Leaf must be enjoined.

The Indy Vapes / Abilene Vape Federal Suit (March 5, 2026)

On March 5, 2026, Indy Vapes (Independence) and Abilene Vape and CBD filed a federal Fourth Amendment lawsuit against:

• Attorney General Kris Kobach.
• KBI Director Tony Mattivi.
• Individual KBI agents who participated in the raids.
• Local officials in Independence and Abilene who participated.

The Allegations

• Defective warrants. The underlying warrant applications failed Fourth Amendment particularity requirements. Boilerplate language about hemp products without specific articulable suspicion of contraband.
• Illegal search tactics. KBI agents unplugged in-store cameras during the searches, preventing the businesses from documenting the conduct of the raids. The agents allegedly seized inventory and cash beyond the scope of the warrants.
• Civil-rights violations. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiffs seek damages against the individual officers and policymakers for violating the businesses’ constitutional rights.

Why Federal Court

The plaintiffs filed in federal court because:

• The Fourth Amendment claim is federal.
• The Section 1983 framework gives access to federal damages remedies unavailable in state court.
• The federal-state-law-preemption question (federal Farm Bill vs. Kansas total-THC interpretation) is fundamentally a federal-law issue.
• Federal courts have been more receptive to Fourth Amendment challenges to drug-enforcement tactics than Kansas state courts in recent years.

The Manhattan American Shaman Predecessor

The October 2025 raids were preceded by the January 2025 Riley County Police Department raid on a CBD American Shaman store in Manhattan. That case did not result in a federal Fourth Amendment lawsuit, but it set the precedent for aggressive local-police enforcement of hemp law in Kansas. The American Shaman case framed the issue: when local police interpret Kansas hemp law more strictly than federal Farm Bill, what protections do hemp retailers have?

The Kansas Two-Step Connection

The October 2025 raids and subsequent lawsuits build on the broader Kansas civil-rights litigation framework established by the "Kansas Two-Step" ACLU lawsuits. In a July 2023 order, U.S. District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil ruled the Kansas Highway Patrol’s Two-Step interdiction tactic unconstitutional, writing that the patrol "waged war on motorists." See Kansas Two-Step page.

The Vratil ruling provides Fourth Amendment precedent for the Indy Vapes / Abilene Vape suit; the legal theory is similar (KS state law enforcement exceeding federal Fourth Amendment limits) even though the specific tactics differ.

The Stakes

The lawsuits matter for three reasons:

• Immediate relief for the affected businesses — return of seized inventory and cash, enjoining further enforcement.
• Federal-state-law-preemption precedent — if Kansas state courts or federal courts side with the businesses, future state-level total-THC reinterpretation enforcement becomes legally constrained.
• The November 12, 2026 federal cliff dynamic — if Section 781 of PL 119-37 takes effect without congressional repeal, the federal-preemption argument becomes substantially weaker (because the products would be federally unlawful too). The window for the lawsuits to produce favorable rulings is the next ~12 months.

Legal Defense Resources

• Grissom Miller Law Firm (Kansas City, Missouri) — Barry Grissom, former U.S. Attorney for Kansas. Lead counsel in Hanging Leaf injunction.
• Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC (Wichita, Topeka, Lawrence, Overland Park) — substantial Kansas drug defense practice.
• ACLU of Kansas Cooperating Attorneys Network — referrals for civil rights / Fourth Amendment cases.
• Kansas Bar Association Lawyer Referral Service — 1-800-928-3111.

Related on this site: Kansas Delta-8 / THCA / HHC Gray Market, Federal Hemp Cliff, Kansas Industrial Hemp Program.