Supreme Court Unanimously Narrows Federal Gun Ban for Drug Users

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Thursday that the federal government cannot strip an individual of their Second Amendment rights solely for being a habitual user of marijuana. In a 9-0 decision, the justices sided with a Texas man who challenged a decades-old federal statute barring unlawful drug users from possessing firearms, marking another significant expansion of gun rights under the current court.[1][5]

The case, United States v. Hemani, centered on 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 that makes it a felony for an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance to possess a gun. The ruling represents a major defeat for the Justice Department, which had defended the law as a necessary public safety measure.[2][4]

Writing for the unanimous court, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch concluded that the government's application of the law to a regular marijuana user who was not actively intoxicated failed to meet the strict constitutional standard established by the court's recent Second Amendment jurisprudence. "We appreciate that drugs and guns can sometimes make for a dangerous mix," Gorsuch wrote, but emphasized that the restriction could not be squared with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.[3][5]

The dispute began in August 2022 when federal agents raided the Texas home of Ali Danial Hemani. During the search, agents discovered a Glock 9mm handgun and 60 grams of marijuana. Hemani, who was not accused of any other crimes, admitted to investigators that he consumed marijuana "about every other day."[5][7]

Crucially, prosecutors never alleged that Hemani was under the influence of drugs while handling the weapon. Instead, they relied entirely on his admission of habitual use to charge him under the federal statute. Lower courts, including the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, dismissed the charge, prompting the Trump administration's Justice Department to appeal to the Supreme Court.[4]

During oral arguments and in briefs, the government attempted to justify the modern drug-user ban by pointing to founding-era laws that disarmed "habitual drunkards." Gorsuch and the rest of the court rejected this comparison. "Apart from pointing to habitual drunkard laws, the government has not even attempted to prove that any other specific historical principle might justify its prosecution in this case," the opinion stated, calling the analogy strained.[5]

Despite the unanimous outcome, Gorsuch explicitly noted that the court's decision is "narrow." The ruling does not address whether the government can disarm individuals who are actively intoxicated while possessing a firearm, nor does it strike down laws preventing convicted felons or those with severe addiction issues from owning guns.[3][6]

The case generated highly unusual political alliances. Hemani's defense was supported by a coalition that included the American Civil Liberties Union, cannabis legalization advocates like NORML, and the National Rifle Association. On the opposing side, the Trump administration found itself aligned with gun control organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety, which typically oppose the administration's expansive view of the Second Amendment.[4][6]

The statute at the center of the ruling gained widespread public attention in 2024 when it was used to convict Hunter Biden, the son of former President Joe Biden, for purchasing a revolver while addicted to crack cocaine. The younger Biden was later pardoned by his father before the end of his presidential term, but his high-profile prosecution highlighted the severe penalties—up to 15 years in prison—attached to the 1968 law.[1][2]

The legal landscape surrounding cannabis has shifted dramatically in recent years, complicating the enforcement of federal gun laws. More than half of all U.S. states have broadly legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use, and millions of Americans legally consume the drug under state law. However, because marijuana remains a federally controlled substance, users have technically been barred from purchasing or owning firearms.[4][7]

Legal experts suggest the ruling will force federal prosecutors to abandon standalone charges against drug users unless they can prove the individual was actively impaired while armed. While the decision provides immediate relief to Hemani, it also opens the door for further challenges to federal gun restrictions, leaving lower courts to untangle exactly where the line between habitual use and active intoxication lies.[6]