Supreme Court to Decide If Federal Gun Ban for Marijuana Users Violates Second Amendment

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could decide whether people who use marijuana can legally own guns under federal law.

At issue is a long-standing federal rule that bars anyone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing firearms. While that includes all illegal drugs, it also applies to cannabis, even in states like California where marijuana is legal.

The challenge argues that the rule violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, a right the Supreme Court has interpreted more broadly since its 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That ruling emphasized that the Second Amendment protects the right to own and carry guns, and said any gun law must be consistent with that tradition.

The case, United States v. Hemani, began after FBI agents in Texas found a handgun, marijuana, and cocaine in the home of Ali Danial Hemani. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law as unconstitutional when applied to Hemani, saying it could only apply to people who were “presently impaired.”

Federal prosecutors with the Trump administration are urging the Court to restore the ban, arguing that habitual drug users with guns create safety risks and that the restriction has roots in early American laws disarming people considered dangerous, such as “habitual drunkards.” The Scotusblog writes that U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the law,

“imposes a limited, inherently temporary restriction—one which the individual can remove at any time simply by ceasing his unlawful drug use.” Second, [Sauer] wrote, the law “stands solidly within our Nation’s history and tradition of regulation” of firearms, a key inquiry in determining whether gun restrictions are constitutional. Sauer characterized the law as “a modest, modern analogue” of early American restrictions on the possession of guns by “habitual drunkards.” Third, he added, “habitual illegal drug users with firearms present unique dangers to society—especially because they pose a grave risk of armed, hostile encounters with police officers while impaired.”

Hemani’s lawyers countered that while some early laws barred people from carrying weapons while intoxicated, they didn’t disarm sober individuals for past or occasional use. The Fifth Circuit agreed, saying there was no historical basis for stripping gun rights from someone who isn’t under the influence.

The same law was used to convict President Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, last year after a jury found he had lied about drug use when buying a handgun. He was later pardoned by his father.

The Court’s ruling could have far-reaching effects in places like the Emerald Triangle, where many residents, according to state law, legally use cannabis but still fall under federal definitions of “unlawful users.” In rural counties, such as Humboldt, Trinity, and Mendocino, gun ownership is common.

The case will be argued early next year, with a decision expected by summer 2026. For now, the federal ban remains in effect nationwide even in the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction, meaning marijuana users are still prohibited from owning firearms even in states like California where cannabis is legal.