Massachusetts Retailers Sue to Block Emergency Kratom Ban as Schedule I Order Nears Effective Date

Four Massachusetts retailers that sell kratom (搜索)搜索该药品 have filed a lawsuit seeking to block an emergency order that would temporarily classify all products derived from the Southeast Asian plant as a Schedule I drug, days before the measure was set to take effect.

The complaint, filed in Suffolk County Superior Court last Friday, targets the Department of Public Health查看公司主页 (DPH) and DPH Commissioner Robbie Goldstein. The plaintiffs include Rihaan Corporation, which does business as Jay's Smoke Shop in Salem; Bhakti, LLC in North Billerica; V & K Smoke Shop, LLC in Quincy; and Ambreen & S Inc. in Bellingham. They are represented by California- and Washington-based attorneys with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton (搜索)搜索该词条.

The retailers contend that Goldstein lacked the authority to place kratom (搜索)搜索该药品 into Schedule I, failed to satisfy state requirements to justify the emergency order, and too broadly applied the order to all kratom products rather than synthetic derivatives that pose greater health risks. State health officials had not yet filed a response as of Wednesday, and no hearing date had been scheduled.

The Emergency Order and Its Rationale

Gov. Maura Healey and Goldstein announced the emergency order concerning kratom (搜索)搜索该药品 sales on Aug. 13 through a press release, giving convenience stores, gas stations and other commercial establishments about a two-week period to remove all forms of kratom products from their shelves.

"I'm doing this because I care a lot about people's health and safety, particularly the health and safety of young people," Healey told reporters. "And parents shouldn't have to be afraid that their kids are going to walk into some gas station or a convenience store and buy something that looks harmless that later they ingest or use with other substances that leaves them in really bad shape, including death."

Goldstein's order calls kratom (搜索)搜索该药品 an "imminent hazard to the public safety." The Healey administration warned that unregulated kratom products can lead to physical dependence and withdrawal symptoms similar to opioid withdrawal. While derived from a leafy tropical plant, kratom can be mixed with "highly concentrated" and lab-modified compounds that "can have significantly stronger opioid-like effects," the administration said.

A DPH spokesperson emphasized the public health concerns driving the action: "Residents across Massachusetts have raised serious concerns about dangerous kratom (搜索)搜索该药品 products being sold in smoke shops, convenience stores, and gas stations, often in forms that are easily accessible to young people. These products are not FDA-approved for medical use, are sold without consistent safety standards, and can vary widely in their ingredients and potency, leaving consumers with no reliable way to know what they are taking."

The Legal Challenge

The lawsuit centers on the statutory pathway for the DPH commissioner to temporarily classify dangerous drugs. Under state law, the commissioner must make three key findings: the substance has a "high potential for abuse," it has "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States," and there is a "lack of accepted safety for use of the substance under medical supervision."

In a core argument, the plaintiffs say Goldstein did not sufficiently establish those findings, which makes his order "invalid."

"Plaintiffs do not dispute that some kratom (搜索)搜索该药品 products raise genuine public-health concerns, that some products are marketed irresponsibly, or that the Commonwealth may lawfully regulate them—through labeling requirements, potency limits, age restrictions, testing requirements, or targeted scheduling of concentrated and synthetic derivatives," the lawsuit states. "Plaintiffs' claims concern whether the Commissioner complied with the statutes that govern how the Commonwealth may declare a substance a Schedule I controlled substance, and whether the regulation he adopted is supported by the reasons he gave."

The retailers further contend that the order's enforcement mechanism could deprive them of due process rights, arguing it "prescribes no notice, no pre-suspension opportunity to be heard, no post-suspension hearing within any specified period, no standards governing the exercise of that discretion, and no mechanism for prompt review."

Public Health Data Under Scrutiny

Massachusetts has recorded more than 100 kratom (搜索)搜索该药品-associated deaths since 2020, according to the order. The Massachusetts and Rhode Island Poison Center has reported about 130 kratom-related calls from January 2021 through July 29, 2026, and this year's volume so far is nearly equal to all calls made in 2025.

The lawsuit argues that this public health data does not "describe a sudden emergency." The complaint states: "The Order describes long-standing market conditions, essentially flat mortality data, and undifferentiated poison-center and surveillance figures, and it attributes acute risk to a discrete class of concentrated and synthetic products. Those reasons do not explain why immediate adoption of a rule declaring the entire kratom (搜索)搜索该药品 plant and every product held out as kratom a Schedule I controlled substance was necessary, or why ordinary notice and comment as to that scope would have been contrary to the public interest."

Federal Context and Enforcement

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (搜索)搜索该词条 last month filed notices of intent to temporarily place the alkaloid 7-hydroxymitragynine (搜索)搜索该药品 (7-OH), which is naturally occurring within the kratom (搜索)搜索该药品 plant, and three related substances into Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.

The DPH order delegates monitoring and enforcement responsibilities to municipalities. Local boards of health, inspection departments and municipal governments are authorized to pursue "any enforcement action consistent with a finding of an imminent health hazard," including a summary suspension of a business's license or permit to operate.

The plaintiffs are seeking a temporary restraining order, followed by a hearing and preliminary injunction that bars local authorities from enforcing the kratom (搜索)搜索该药品 order until a decision is made in the case. They say the DPH order will turn their store inventories into "contraband" and that removing kratom products will cause "immediate and substantial loss," including "imminent and irreparable harm," lost customer relationships, and "reputational consequences" from being designated an imminent health hazard.