Massachusetts Put All Kratom in Schedule I. Two Weeks In, Here Is Where It Stands.

On August 13, Governor Maura Healey's office announced that Massachusetts Department of Public Health Commissioner Robbie Goldstein had signed an emergency order placing kratom into Schedule I under state law. After a fourteen-day notice period, the order took effect on August 28. It can remain in force for up to one year.

Two and a half weeks later, the order is being enforced, four retailers have sued to stop it, and no court has ruled. Here is what the order actually does, what the challenge actually argues, and what it means for the wider argument about how kratom gets regulated in this country.

What the order covers

The scope is the part worth reading carefully, because it is broader than most state kratom actions this year.

According to the announcement from the Governor's office, the order covers kratom in all forms, naming powders, tablets, capsules, gummies, and dissolvable strips sold in smoke shops, convenience stores, and gas stations. The Commonwealth's kratom information page confirms the Schedule I designation, the effective date, and the one-year duration, and states that municipalities and local boards of health now have authority to remove kratom products from retail establishments.

Two features make this different from the state actions we covered earlier this year. First, it is an emergency public health order rather than legislation, so it took effect in fourteen days rather than moving through committee. Second, it does not draw a line between botanical leaf material and concentrated or laboratory-modified compounds. Both sit in the same schedule.

The announcement notes that the plant contains mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, and that newer products contain highly concentrated or laboratory-modified compounds. It does not carve those newer products out for separate treatment.

What state officials said

We are reporting these characterizations as the Commonwealth made them, not endorsing or rebutting them.

Governor Healey, in the August 13 announcement: "Dangerous kratom products are being sold in stores across Massachusetts with little oversight, and people, including children, often have no way of knowing what they're buying or how potent it is."

Commissioner Goldstein, in the same release: "Kratom is increasingly being used by youth and adults, and many are unaware of the risks, including overdose, dependence, and serious health consequences."

The announcement also committed the Commonwealth to a public education campaign and to expanding treatment and recovery services.

Who sued, and what they argued

In the days before the order took effect, four Massachusetts retailers filed suit in Suffolk County Superior Court against the Department of Public Health and Commissioner Goldstein. WBUR reported the filing and identified the plaintiffs as Rihaan Corporation, operating Jay's Smoke Shop in Salem, Bhakti LLC in North Billerica, V and K Smoke Shop LLC in Quincy, and Ambreen and S Inc. in Bellingham. They are represented by attorneys at Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton.

The complaint makes five arguments, in summary:

1. The Commissioner lacked the authority to place kratom in Schedule I by order.
2. The order did not satisfy the state's statutory requirements for emergency action.
3. It is overbroad, reaching the entire plant rather than the concentrated derivatives the state describes as the problem.
4. The findings on abuse potential, accepted medical use, and safety were insufficient to support a Schedule I designation.
5. The enforcement mechanism raises due process concerns, because it operates without notice or a hearing before a permit is suspended.

The plaintiffs asked for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement while the case is decided.

The most notable line in the filing is not a denial. The plaintiffs state that they do not dispute that some kratom products raise genuine public health concerns, or that the Commonwealth may lawfully regulate them. What they dispute is the instrument. Their filing lists labeling requirements, potency limits, age restrictions, testing requirements, and targeted scheduling of concentrated and synthetic derivatives as lawful alternatives to scheduling the whole plant.

Where it stands right now

The order was not blocked before it took effect. WBUR reported on September 10 that the Department of Public Health had been served and planned to respond, and that no hearing had been scheduled.

In the meantime, the order is being enforced. That reporting describes municipal inspectors verifying compliance across the state, with follow-up inspections, the ability to confiscate product, ticketing, and fines. Revere's ceiling is three hundred dollars. Violators can also lose their licenses and permits. Store owners described returning inventory, shipping it to states where it remains legal, and placing stock in secure storage against the possibility that the order expires in a year rather than being renewed.

Compliance has been quiet. A Worcester official told WBUR, "We haven't had any real pushback or confrontation when asking to have the products removed."

The commercial side is less quiet. One Salem shop owner told WBUR his store did sixty-seven thousand dollars in kratom sales in 2025, roughly twenty percent of gross margin, and that he is now holding about ten thousand dollars in inventory he cannot sell.

Why this one matters beyond Massachusetts

We have covered a lot of state and federal activity this year, and this action sits at a specific point on the map.

At the federal level, the DEA placed three 7-OH-related compounds in Schedule I in late August, and the American Kratom Association has sued over that order. Both of those actions are aimed at specific chemical entities rather than at leaf.

At the state level, Iowa issued a consumer warning and Montana tabled a regulation bill earlier this month, and cities have been moving faster than statehouses all year. Massachusetts is the most sweeping single action of the group, and the only one to reach the whole plant by emergency order.

That is the pattern worth watching. Where regulators separate botanical leaf from manufactured concentrate, you get labeling rules, potency caps, testing requirements, and age gates. Where they do not, you get a categorical ban, and the enforcement burden lands on small retailers rather than on the manufacturers of the products that prompted the concern in the first place.

We made this argument in detail when Tennessee moved, in our case for regulation over prohibition, and we are not going to restate it here. The Massachusetts plaintiffs are making a version of the same point in a court filing, which is a more interesting place for it to be made than a blog post.

Where we stand

Plainly, and without reaching past what we can actually say.

We are not going to argue with the Commonwealth about safety, because that is a question for regulators and researchers rather than for a retailer's blog. What we will say is that leaf material and manufactured concentrate are different product categories, they are made differently, and rules that treat them as one thing produce outcomes that do not track the underlying concern.

We support age restrictions, mandatory per-batch lab testing, honest labeling, potency limits on concentrates, and enforcement against the products that get sold with no documentation at all. That is the version of regulation we have operated under voluntarily for twelve years, and it is why our own standards are published rather than asserted. If you want to see what that looks like in practice, our vendor vetting checklist is the same standard we hold ourselves to.

On orders: we comply with all applicable state and local laws, and we do not fulfill orders to restricted areas. If your state or municipality has acted, that is reflected at checkout.

What to watch next

• A hearing date in Suffolk Superior Court. Nothing was scheduled as of September 10. The preliminary injunction question is the first real test.
• Whether the order is renewed or allowed to lapse. It runs up to one year from August 28. Retailers storing inventory are betting on the lapse.
• Whether the Legislature acts. An emergency order is not a statute. A regulatory bill would displace it, and several kratom bills have been filed in Massachusetts in recent sessions.
• Whether other states copy the mechanism. The emergency public health order is a much faster instrument than legislation, and Massachusetts has now demonstrated that it works.

We will update this post as the case moves. Questions about whether we ship to your state can go to orders@nuwavebotanicals.com.

Frequently asked questions

Is kratom legal in Massachusetts right now?

No. An emergency order placing kratom in Schedule I under state law took effect on August 28, 2026, and it remains in force. A legal challenge is pending and no court has ruled.

Does the Massachusetts order cover leaf kratom or only 7-OH products?

Both. The order covers kratom in all forms, and it does not distinguish botanical leaf material from concentrated or laboratory-modified compounds. That lack of distinction is the central argument in the retailers' lawsuit.

How long does the emergency order last?

Up to one year from its effective date of August 28, 2026. It could be renewed, replaced by legislation, or allowed to lapse.

Who filed the lawsuit against the ban?

Four Massachusetts retailers filed in Suffolk County Superior Court against the Department of Public Health and Commissioner Robbie Goldstein, seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. As of September 10 reporting, the Department had been served and no hearing had been scheduled.

Can I still order kratom to a Massachusetts address?

No. We comply with all applicable state and local laws and do not fulfill orders to restricted areas.

What happens to inventory retailers already own?

Reporting describes retailers returning product to suppliers, shipping it to states where it remains legal, and placing it in secure storage. Local boards of health can also confiscate product during inspections.

Sources

• Office of Governor Maura Healey, announcement on kratom products, August 13, 2026
• Commonwealth of Massachusetts, kratom information page
• WBUR, retailers sue to halt the Massachusetts kratom ban, August 27, 2026
• WBUR, kratom ban meets quiet compliance as retailers clear shelves, September 10, 2026