Supreme Court upholds gun rights of marijuana users
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled unanimously that the government may not strip people of their Second Amendment rights simply because they use marijuana, finding the federal ban on gun possession by drug users unconstitutional as applied to a Texas man.
In United States v. Hemani, the justices held that prosecuting Ali Danial Hemani under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), which bars an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance from possessing a firearm, is not "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion of the court, Reason reported. The decision affirmed rulings by a federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, both of which had dismissed the indictment.
The defendant and the search
Hemani is a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan who was born in Texas and has lived most of his life in the Dallas area. In 2022, federal agents searched his family's home in an investigation into suspected terrorism-related activities, according to North Carolina Lawyers Weekly.
Hemani cooperated, surrendering a gun and pointing out marijuana on the property, and told agents he used marijuana about every other day. No terrorism or drug charges were brought. Months later, the government indicted him under Section 922(g)(3), a charge carrying up to 15 years in prison.
What the Court held
To defend the statute, the government had to show it was consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation, the test the Court set in its 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Trump administration argued the law resembled founding-era measures targeting "habitual drunkards," including vagrancy, civil-commitment and surety laws.
The justices rejected that analogy. "The historical laws on which it relies targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways," Gorsuch wrote, concluding the government had not carried its "conceded burden." A "habitual drunkard" historically meant someone whose drinking left them incapacitated, while the statute automatically disarms any regular drug user without proof of danger. "To state the analogy is to expose its deficiency," Gorsuch wrote.
The opinion stressed that marijuana use today resembles drinking at the founding and was "at odds with" the Trump administration's move to reschedule cannabis. As Marijuana Moment reported, marijuana was rescheduled to Schedule III after oral argument.
The lineup and concurrences
Gorsuch's majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The ACLU, whose attorneys represent Hemani, described the outcome as a unanimous 9-0 decision.
Thomas wrote separately to argue the statute "appears to exceed Congress's enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce." Jackson, joined by Sotomayor, joined in full but called the Bruen framework "unworkable." Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, concurred only in the judgment, writing that he "would affirm on this ground alone."
The Court emphasized its holding was narrow. Gorsuch wrote it did not address efforts to disarm addicts or intoxicated individuals, laws Congress might pass for particular drugs, the felon-in-possession provision in 922(g)(1), or prosecutions backed by individualized proof of dangerousness.
Reaction and what comes next
"Today's unanimous 9-0 decision makes it clear that the government cannot make it crime for people to own a gun ... simply because they use marijuana," said Cecillia Wang, the ACLU's legal director. Kevin Sabet, CEO of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, criticized the ruling, saying the Court signaled that "today's highly potent marijuana and guns go together just fine."
The decision does not bar all prosecutions. As FOX 4 News noted, it leaves open whether the government may proceed with individualized proof that a defendant's drug use makes him a danger. The justices this term also left New York's gun-industry liability law intact and sided with a Mississippi death row inmate on jury bias.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Supreme Court decide in United States v. Hemani?
The Court ruled unanimously that prosecuting Ali Danial Hemani under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) for possessing a firearm while a marijuana user violated the Second Amendment, because the government failed to show the ban fit the historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Does the ruling strike down the federal drug-user gun ban entirely?
No. The opinion is narrow. It did not address bans on addicts or intoxicated individuals, the felon-in-possession law, or prosecutions supported by individualized proof that a defendant's drug use makes him dangerous.
How did the justices vote?
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion, joined by six other justices. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, concurred in the judgment. The ACLU described the result as a unanimous 9-0 decision.
Why did the Court reject the "habitual drunkard" comparison?
Gorsuch wrote that founding-era habitual-drunkard laws targeted incapacitated people and required judicial process, while Section 922(g)(3) automatically disarms any regular drug user without proof of danger. "To state the analogy is to expose its deficiency," he wrote.
Sources
Reporting compiled from court records and the cited source outlets.