Due Process vs. Public Panic: The Missouri Kratom Ruling and the High Bar for Banning Substances

The Facts of the Case

On a recent Friday in Jackson County, Missouri, Circuit Judge Charles McKenzie delivered a ruling that has become a flashpoint in the ongoing national debate over substance regulation, public health, and individual liberty. The case centered on a motion filed by Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, alongside the state’s Department of Health and Senior Services, seeking a temporary restraining order against Kansas City-based CBD American Shaman and several affiliated companies. The target of the state’s ire was specifically the company’s sale of products containing 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), a compound derived from the kratom plant.

Attorney General Hanaway’s legal filing argued vehemently that these 7-OH products constitute “hazardous opioids” banned under both state and federal law. To bolster this claim, her office submitted sworn statements that painted a dire picture. These included testimony from an undercover narcotics officer with the Missouri State Highway Patrol alleging that 7-OH is being used to adulterate the deadly synthetic opioid fentanyl. Perhaps most heart-wrenching was the affidavit from a woman who stated her brother died from a kratom overdose. The state’s evidence package was rounded out with an FDA report labeling 7-OH as “a potent opioid that poses an emerging public health threat” and state health data purporting to link synthetic 7-OH to at least 197 deaths in Missouri.

Facing this onslaught, the defendants, led by company owner Vince Sanders, mounted a vigorous defense. They submitted countervailing statements from five independent toxicology and addiction experts. These experts largely contended that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that 7-OH and kratom pose a significant public health risk. One expert specializing in narcotics research stated she had never encountered 7-OH being used to cut fentanyl. Vince Sanders’ own affidavit provided context, detailing his rationale for creating the 7-OH products, which he said now see “enormous” demand, particularly from individuals seeking alternatives for pain management.

The Judicial Reasoning

After hearing oral arguments, Judge McKenzie issued his order. He did not grant the temporary restraining order. His reasoning was procedural and principled. The judge noted the existence of “competing affidavits” from qualified experts on both sides of the argument. He concluded that, based on the pleadings and oral arguments alone, the court could not determine whether the plaintiff—the State of Missouri—was “likely to succeed on the merits” of its case. This “likelihood of success” is a critical legal threshold that must be met for the extraordinary remedy of a temporary restraining order to be issued.

Crucially, Judge McKenzie denied the motion “without prejudice,” meaning the state is free to renew its request. He explicitly stated his desire to see more developed evidence, writing, “It is because of this finding that the court determines it necessary to hold an additional hearing… where it can consider the parties’ respective positions with the potential of testimonial evidence and other properly introduced evidence.” He signaled that the court would consider “other injunctive relief” at a future hearing. This ruling came shortly after Attorney General Hanaway filed a similar lawsuit against another company, Relax Relief Rejuvenate Trading LLC, and its owners Dustin Robinson and Ajaykumar Patel, indicating a broader regulatory crackdown.

Opinion: The Uncomfortable Pillar of Liberty in a Time of Crisis

This case is a microcosm of a much larger, and profoundly difficult, tension in a free society: the balance between collective safety and individual liberty, between swift government action and deliberate due process. From the perspective of unwavering support for the Constitution and the rule of law, Judge McKenzie’s ruling, while it may frustrate those seeking immediate action, is not only correct—it is essential.

The Attorney General’s office is fulfilling its duty to protect public safety. The testimonies submitted are harrowing. A life lost is an unspeakable tragedy, and if a substance is genuinely causing widespread harm, the state has not only a right but an obligation to intervene. Hanaway’s statement that her mission is “to safeguard Missourians from unregulated and addictive substances” is a legitimate governing objective. The FDA’s concerns cannot be dismissed lightly.

However, the mechanism of that intervention is everything. The state sought a temporary restraining order—a pre-trial, emergency legal tool that can halt activity before a full hearing on the facts. Such tools are powerful and inherently restrictive. They are the legal equivalent of a surgical clamp, applied before a complete diagnosis. The Founding Fathers, through the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, erected a mighty barrier against such preemptive state power: the guarantee of due process of law.

Judge McKenzie’s insistence on “testimonial evidence” and “more fully developed” arguments is the very embodiment of that guarantee. He looked at the dossier of fear presented by the state and the dossier of doubt presented by the defense and concluded, wisely, that a courtroom is not a place for dueling press releases or competing headlines. It is a place for tested, cross-examined, scrutinized truth. The fact that qualified experts disagree fundamentally on the risk profile of 7-OH is not a judicial inconvenience; it is the core reason the judicial process exists. To grant the state’s request in the face of such a direct conflict among scientists would be to declare one government-affiliated viewpoint inherently superior without trial. That is a perilous precedent.

This touches on deeper principles of federalism and commerce. Vince Sanders’ claim of “enormous demand” for pain management alternatives speaks to a national crisis of untreated chronic pain and opioid addiction. Whether 7-OH is a safe alternative or a dangerous culprit is the precise question that needs answering. But the rush to ban by administrative or judicial fiat, bypassing the legislative process where such debates are meant to be aired publicly, threatens the innovation that might yield solutions and disrespects the autonomy of adults to make informed choices about their own bodies, a cornerstone of personal liberty.

The emotional weight of the affidavit regarding a brother’s death cannot be overstated. It demands our utmost respect and a thorough investigation. But in a nation of laws, individual tragedy, no matter how profound, cannot alone justify the abrogation of due process for all. The proper path is for the state to marshal its evidence, present its witnesses, and prove its case in the adversarial crucible of a court hearing—exactly as Judge McKenzie has now ordered.

Conclusion: Process as Protection

The Missouri kratom case is far from over. More hearings will come; more evidence will be presented. The final judgment may well side with the Attorney General, leading to a permanent injunction. But it must follow the process. Judge Charles McKenzie, in his seemingly mundane procedural ruling, performed a vital democratic service. He reminded the state that its power, even when exercised with the best of intentions, is checked by the rights of the accused and the demands of evidence. He reminded the public that in a polarized age, the courts remain a place where “competing affidavits” must be weighed, not merely counted.

For those who cherish liberty, this is often an uncomfortable truth. It means that potentially harmful substances remain on shelves during litigation. It means that bureaucratic urgency is delayed by judicial deliberation. But this friction is not a bug in the American system; it is its most sacred feature. It is the mechanism that prevents government by panic and policy by anecdote. The path to public safety must be paved with proven facts and fair procedure, or it is a path that leads away from freedom itself. Judge McKenzie has insisted that Missouri walk that harder, truer path. For that, this ruling should be seen not as a setback for public health, but as a reaffirmation of constitutional health.