Supreme Court could loosen law barring marijuana users from owning guns

Supreme Court Signals Potential Shift on Gun Rights for Marijuana Users

The Supreme Court appeared inclined Monday to narrow a federal law that prohibits marijuana users from owning firearms, with justices from across the ideological spectrum questioning the government’s position in a case that has created unusual political alliances.

During oral arguments, the majority of justices seemed sympathetic to Texas resident Ali Danial Hemani, who argued that his occasional marijuana use shouldn’t have triggered criminal charges for gun possession under federal law.

The case highlights the growing tension between evolving marijuana laws at the state level and federal regulations that still classify cannabis as an illegal substance. Justice Neil Gorsuch, part of the court’s conservative majority, directly addressed this contradiction during arguments.

“What do we do with the fact that marijuana is sort of illegal and sort of isn’t and that the federal government itself is conflicted on this?” Gorsuch asked.

Current federal law prohibits all users of illegal drugs from possessing firearms, regardless of frequency or context of use. The Trump administration has asked the high court to reinstate criminal charges against Hemani, who acknowledged smoking marijuana a few times weekly while owning a gun.

Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris defended the ban as a reasonable public safety measure aimed at keeping weapons away from potentially dangerous individuals. However, justices from both wings of the court appeared skeptical of this broad application.

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointedly questioned the government’s evidence linking moderate marijuana use to dangerous behavior. “What is the government’s evidence that using marijuana a couple of times a week makes someone dangerous?” she asked.

The case represents a notable intersection of Second Amendment rights and changing attitudes toward cannabis. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court’s liberal members, suggested the government’s position conflicts with the court’s landmark 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that gun regulations must be rooted in historical tradition.

“I think your argument sort of falls apart under the Bruen test,” Jackson told the government’s attorney.

The administration attempted to establish historical precedent by citing laws that barred “habitual drunkards” from possessing firearms. However, Hemani’s attorney, Erin Murphy, countered that those laws targeted extreme cases of near-continuous intoxication, not comparable to modern cannabis users who might consume marijuana occasionally or for medicinal purposes.

“There are many modern cannabis users who regularly take gummies as sleep aids, for example, who are very capable of making safe decisions about firearms,” Murphy argued.

The case has created unusual bedfellows in the legal and advocacy worlds. Organizations typically at odds on gun policy have found themselves aligned, with both the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association filing briefs supporting Hemani. Cannabis advocacy groups like NORML have joined this coalition.

Meanwhile, gun safety organizations such as Everytown for Gun Safety have supported the government’s position, finding themselves unusually aligned with the Trump administration on a Second Amendment issue.

Despite the apparent skepticism toward the government’s position, some justices expressed concern about potential implications of ruling for Hemani. Chief Justice John Roberts worried that such a decision might require courts to regularly evaluate the relative dangers of various substances or undermine congressional authority.

“It just seems to me that this takes a fairly cavalier approach to the necessary consideration of expertise and the judgments we leave to Congress and the executive branch,” Roberts said.

The case emerges against a backdrop of rapidly changing marijuana laws across the United States, with recreational use now legal in 21 states and the District of Columbia, while medical marijuana is permitted in 37 states. This state-level legalization contrasts sharply with federal law, which still classifies marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance.

A decision in the case is expected by the end of June, potentially reshaping the intersection of federal drug policy and Second Amendment rights for millions of Americans.