Massachusetts retailers sue to block temporary kratom classification as order takes effect

Four Massachusetts retailers are asking Suffolk County Superior Court to block enforcement of an emergency order temporarily placing all kratom products covered by the state’s definition in Schedule I as the measure takes effect Friday, Aug. 28.

The lawsuit does not itself suspend the order. As of the latest report, no hearing date or merits ruling had been reported, and the Department of Public Health said it had not been served. That leaves retailers and municipal officials uncertain about how quickly enforcement may proceed.

Retailers challenge the order

The plaintiffs are Rihaan Corporation, doing 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 sued DPH Commissioner Robbie Goldstein and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health in Suffolk County Superior Court on Aug. 21, according to the complaint and reporting by WBUR.

The retailers seek a temporary restraining order, followed by a preliminary injunction blocking local enforcement while the case proceeds. Their complaint argues that Goldstein lacked statutory authority to place kratom in Schedule I, did not establish the findings required for emergency scheduling and applied the action too broadly to all kratom products.

The retailers say the state should have distinguished traditional kratom from concentrated or synthetic derivatives. They also argue that the evidence cited by the state does not establish a sudden emergency requiring immediate action without ordinary notice and comment.

Those are allegations in a preliminary lawsuit, not court findings. No merits ruling had been reported as of Aug. 27.

What state officials say

Gov. Maura Healey and state health officials say kratom products are sold without consistent safety standards and can vary substantially in ingredients and potency. DPH says consumers may not have a reliable way to know what they are taking.

The administration has also cited concerns about physical dependence, withdrawal symptoms and opioid-like effects. Its announcement said some products are highly concentrated or lab-modified and may pose stronger risks than traditional plant material.

The emergency order describes kratom as an imminent hazard to public safety. The order says Massachusetts has recorded more than 100 kratom-associated deaths since 2020. The Massachusetts and Rhode Island Poison Center reported about 130 kratom-related calls from January 2021 through July 29, 2026, with the 2026 total at that point nearly equal to all calls reported in 2025.

The retailers dispute the state’s interpretation of that evidence. Their complaint says the data describe longer-term conditions rather than a sudden emergency and do not justify applying Schedule I treatment to every product sold as kratom.

What the emergency order changes

Healey and Goldstein announced the emergency action Aug. 13 after a 14-day notice period. It temporarily classifies all forms of kratom covered by the state’s definition as a Schedule I controlled substance beginning Aug. 28, for up to one year.

The state’s implementation materials direct commercial establishments, including convenience stores, gas stations and smoke shops, to remove kratom products from their shelves. The clearest immediate business consequence is that retailers may no longer be able to sell products covered by the order.

The order also gives local boards of health, inspection departments and municipal governments enforcement responsibilities. Those officials may pursue enforcement consistent with a finding of an imminent health hazard, including possible action affecting a business license or operating permit.

The retailers argue that this enforcement structure lacks clear notice and hearing procedures. They say the order could force them to remove existing inventory and cause immediate financial, customer and reputational harm. The practical effect of the lawsuit remained uncertain because the state had not yet filed a response and DPH said it had not been served.

Separate from proposed legislation

The administrative order is separate from House Bill H.1680, a Massachusetts legislative proposal titled “An Act relative to a ban on Kratom.” The General Court’s record describes the bill as legislation to establish kratom as a controlled substance and lists it with the Judiciary Committee. The bill is not the source of the Aug. 28 effective date.

The emergency order also should not be treated as identical to separate federal scheduling proceedings involving 7-hydroxymitragynine and related substances. Massachusetts’ action, as described by the state and challenged in the lawsuit, covers all kratom products within the state’s definition.

What happens next

The next significant steps are service of the complaint, a response from DPH, any decision on the requested temporary restraining order and scheduling of a preliminary-injunction hearing.

Unless a court or state action changes the order, its scheduled effective date remains Aug. 28, 2026. Retailers and local officials should rely on the order’s text and current state or municipal guidance for enforcement instructions. The lawsuit alone does not change the order’s status.

Sources

Look for updates to this story

Discover more from Interactive News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.