Supreme Court: Marijuana Users Can Own Guns in Landmark Case

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that the federal government cannot automatically prosecute marijuana users for possessing firearms, delivering a landmark decision at the intersection of Second Amendment rights and federal drug policy. The 9-0 ruling in United States v. Hemani marks a significant expansion of gun rights and could affect millions of American cannabis users.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the Court, held that applying Section 922(g)(3) of the 1968 Gun Control Act — which makes it a felony for “unlawful users” of controlled substances to possess firearms — to regular marijuana users without evidence of dangerousness violates the Second Amendment, as reported by the Associated Press.

The Case

The case centered on Ali Danial Hemani, a Texas man and dual U.S.-Pakistan citizen who lived with his parents in the Dallas area and worked a stable job. In 2022, FBI agents searching Hemani’s home as part of a broader investigation found a Glock 19 9mm pistol, 60 grams of marijuana, and 4.7 grams of cocaine. Hemani admitted to using marijuana “every other day” but was not accused of being intoxicated at the time or using the firearm in connection with any criminal activity.

He was indicted under Section 922(g)(3), which carries up to 15 years in prison for a knowing violation. A federal district judge dismissed the charge, citing Fifth Circuit precedent, and the appeals court upheld that decision. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in October 2025.

The Court’s Reasoning

Applying the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Court required the government to show that the restriction was “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The government argued that early American laws targeting “habitual drunkards” provided a sufficient historical analogue.

Gorsuch rejected that comparison on multiple grounds. He noted that “habitual drunkard” historically meant someone frequently incapacitated — not merely a regular user — and that such laws typically provided procedural protections like trials or bond hearings before restricting liberties. The federal ban, by contrast, “automatically divests an individual of his constitutional right to bear arms the moment he becomes an unlawful user,” as SCOTUSblog reported.

“We do not question that sometimes an individual’s unlawful use of marijuana may render him a danger to others,” Gorsuch wrote. “But, again, the government disclaims the need to show anything like that in this case.” He warned that affording the government “that kind of broad power to designate any group as dangerous” would risk “allow[ing] it to quickly swallow the Second Amendment.”

The Court also highlighted an internal contradiction in the government’s position: the Trump administration reclassified marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III in April 2026, recognizing its medical use and lower abuse potential, yet sought to prosecute millions of users as categorically dangerous.

Narrow but Significant

The justices emphasized that the ruling is narrow. It does not strike down Section 922(g)(3) entirely, nor does it protect drug addicts (such as the Hunter Biden prosecution involving cocaine addiction), those intoxicated while armed, or individuals whom the government can prove are dangerous.

Several justices wrote separate concurrences. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, agreed that the government had failed to show Hemani was incapacitated like historical “habitual drunkards.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the Bruen framework itself is “unworkable.” Justice Clarence Thomas contended that Congress lacks constitutional authority to regulate firearms that merely crossed state lines.

Unusual Alliances and Reactions

The case forged unlikely coalitions. The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association both supported Hemani, alongside cannabis legalization groups like NORML. Gun safety groups including Everytown and Brady, along with anti-legalization organizations, supported the government.

Cecillia Wang, ACLU Legal Director, praised the ruling, saying the Court “sent a strong message that the government cannot criminalize the conduct of large numbers of people by making categorical and unfounded assumptions about whether they are dangerous.” John Commerford of the NRA-ILA called it “a major victory for the Second Amendment.”

Kevin Sabet of Smart Approaches to Marijuana condemned the decision, warning that “public health and safety are the collateral damage.” Kris Brown of Brady noted the ruling was narrow and reaffirmed that “legislatures [can] restrict firearms access by certain categories of people.”

What’s Next

Legal experts expect a wave of follow-up litigation testing the ruling’s boundaries, particularly regarding state laws that bar medical marijuana cardholders from obtaining carry permits or possessing firearms. The Court has not yet ruled in Wolford v. Lopez, a pending case challenging Hawaii’s restrictions on carrying guns on private property, which could further define Second Amendment limits.

The Justice Department prosecutes roughly 300 cases per year where violation of the drug-user gun ban is a leading charge — cases that will now face significantly higher legal hurdles.