Supreme Court hears challenge to federal gun ban for marijuana users
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments March 2 in a case testing whether a federal law that bars illegal drug users from owning guns can stand when marijuana use is increasingly legal in many states. Justices signaled they may narrow how the law applies, while questioning how the government links cannabis use to dangerousness and whether the statute fits the court’s current requirements for gun regulations. The arguments took place as the justices weighed a challenge brought by Ali Danial Hemani, a Texas man facing prosecution tied to his gun possession and marijuana use.
As the Trump administration urged the court to revive Hemani’s criminal case, conservative and liberal justices alike pressed concerns about the government’s evidence and the legal framework for firearm restrictions. The government argued that the ban on illegal drug users is a reasonable measure to keep guns out of the hands of people it describes as potentially dangerous, but multiple justices challenged that framing during questioning. The case is expected to be decided by the end of June.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative, focused on the evidentiary link between marijuana use and risk. “What is the government’s evidence that using marijuana a couple of times a week makes someone dangerous?” Barrett asked. Her skepticism echoed broader concerns raised by other justices about using a categorical ban rather than a more tailored inquiry into dangerousness.
The administration’s defense of the law came through Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris, who urged the court to treat the illegal drug user firearms restriction as a reasonable way to prevent potentially dangerous individuals from possessing guns. The case also raised questions about how the federal government’s position interacts with changing state-level marijuana policy, and what that means for a federal statute tied to “illegal drug” status.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, another conservative, said the court must grapple with the mismatch between marijuana’s federal illegality and its broader state-level acceptance. “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, referencing the court’s emphasis on historical grounding for gun regulations. Gorsuch was part of the conservative majority that helped establish that approach in 2022 in a decision known as New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who leans liberal, raised questions about whether a categorical firearms ban for cannabis users aligns with the court’s Bruen test. “I think your argument sort of falls apart under the Bruen test,” Jackson said. Her comments reflected skepticism that the government’s historical comparisons provide the close analogs the court says it requires for new gun restrictions.
The government argued that historical laws barring “habitual drunkards” from owning guns provide meaningful support for the illegal drug user ban. Gorsuch challenged the premise, asking whether those early laws would logically require disarming people in circumstances that resemble cannabis use today. “Are they all habitual drunkards who would be properly disarmed for life under your theory?” Gorsuch asked, pointing to early American drinking practices that he said were more common than the government’s comparisons suggested.
Hemani’s lawyer, Erin Murphy, argued that the historical laws the government cited address extreme cases and that modern cannabis users are not necessarily comparable. Murphy said marijuana users may regularly take gummies, for example, as sleep aids, and argued they can handle firearms safely. She urged the court to treat the government’s historical analogies as insufficient to justify a broad lifetime firearms restriction for cannabis use.
The case also produced unusual alignments in court arguments. The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association supported Hemani’s position, as did cannabis legalization groups such as NORML, while gun-safety organizations like Everytown, which usually opposes the Trump administration on Second Amendment issues, were on the other side. Justices appeared to consider the implications for other drugs as well.
Some justices questioned whether a ruling favoring Hemani could expand gun possession for people who use other substances they described as more dangerous. That concern also pointed toward what a shift away from the current ban might require from courts, including more detailed evaluations of dangerousness for different substances. Chief Justice John Roberts said moving away from the ban could take decision-making out of Congress and the executive branch and instead require courts to make “in-depth considerations” more frequently. “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.
This hearing marked the second gun case on the court’s docket this term, coming after justices previously considered how to apply gun rules under Bruen’s historical-tradition approach. In another case, justices appeared likely to strike down a Hawaii law that restricts guns in stores and hotels. As the court takes up the Hemani case, a decision is expected by the end of June. MSI previously reported that the Supreme Court would weigh the federal ban on guns for regular marijuana users in its consideration of the Hemani challenge.