A Supreme Court case over whether marijuana users can own guns is creating unusual alliances

In an unusual legal alignment that bridges traditional political divides, the Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday in a case challenging federal restrictions on gun ownership for cannabis users. The case brings together unlikely allies and opponents, creating a rare political crossover in Washington.

At the center of the dispute is a federal law prohibiting regular marijuana users from legally owning firearms. The Biden administration is defending this restriction with support from gun control advocacy groups, while the National Rifle Association has joined forces with the American Civil Liberties Union to challenge the law.

The case involves Ali Danial Hemani, a Texas man charged with a felony for possessing a firearm while admitting to smoking marijuana every other day. FBI agents discovered a gun in his house during a search that also uncovered a small amount of cocaine, though he faced charges only for the firearm violation.

The conservative-leaning 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled against the government, determining that only individuals who are actually intoxicated while armed could be criminally charged.

“We’re deeply concerned with the potential of this statute to basically give federal prosecutors a blank check,” said Cecillia Wang, legal director at the ACLU. “Millions of Americans use marijuana and there is no way for them to know based on words of this statute whether they could be charged or convicted of this crime because they own a firearm.”

This legal battle comes amid significant shifts in marijuana policy across the United States. Cannabis is now legal for medicinal purposes in most states and for recreational use in approximately half the country. However, it remains classified as illegal under federal law, creating tension between state and federal regulations.

President Biden recently signed an order to expedite the reclassification of marijuana as a less dangerous drug, reflecting evolving attitudes about cannabis. Despite this move toward relaxing cannabis restrictions, his Justice Department continues to defend the gun ownership prohibition.

Government lawyers argue the restriction is justified because “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.” They draw historical parallels to restrictions on people who were frequently intoxicated.

The gun-rights advocacy groups contend the law infringes on Second Amendment protections. “Americans have traditionally chosen which substances are acceptable for responsible recreational use, and the fundamental right to keep and bear arms was never denied to people who occasionally partook in such drugs — unless they were carrying arms while actively intoxicated,” attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation wrote in court documents.

Cannabis advocacy organization NORML has also weighed in, noting that one of the fastest-growing demographics of marijuana users is baby boomers seeking relief from conditions like arthritis and sleep problems through products such as marijuana edibles.

“It’s laughable to think that by outlawing cannabis users possessing firearms you’ll minimize the problem with gun violence,” said Joe A. Bondy, chair of NORML’s board of directors.

The case represents a significant test for the Supreme Court, which has recently expanded gun rights while upholding certain restrictions, such as disarming individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders. The Department of Justice argues that drug users present similar risks that justify limitations on their gun ownership.

The same federal statute was applied in the high-profile case against Hunter Biden, who was convicted of purchasing a gun while addicted to cocaine.

Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control advocacy group, supports the administration’s position, arguing the law meets the Supreme Court’s requirement that gun legislation must have strong historical foundations. The organization noted in its court filing that “restricting firearm use by illegal drug users is ‘as old as legislative recognition of the drug problem itself.'”

The case highlights the complex intersection of evolving drug policies and constitutional rights in American society, with implications that could extend beyond marijuana to affect gun ownership rights for users of other controlled substances.