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

Lead: This week the U.S. Supreme Court is weighing a challenge to a federal law that bars people who regularly use marijuana from possessing firearms, producing an uncommon coalition of advocates and adversaries. The dispute — highlighted in the government’s request to revive a criminal prosecution of Texas resident Ali Danial Hemani — pits traditional gun-rights groups allied with civil-liberties advocates against a Justice Department defending the restriction. The case arrives after the Court’s 2022 expansion of individual gun rights and could affect how drug-use statutes intersect with the Second Amendment.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court is considering whether the federal prohibition on firearm possession by “habitual” drug users applies to people who use marijuana regularly; the case is set for argument on a Supreme Court sitting day described in the filings as Monday.
• The Justice Department, under President Donald Trump’s administration, is defending the statute and asking the Court to reinstate the criminal case against Ali Danial Hemani, who acknowledged smoking marijuana every other day and was charged for a gun found at his home.
• The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously vacated Hemani’s conviction, ruling that only armed intoxication supported a conviction under the statute, creating a split with other courts.
• The litigation has produced unusual allies: the ACLU and the NRA are on the same side arguing for gun access, while some gun-control groups like Everytown back the Justice Department’s position to uphold the restriction.
• Cannabis remains illegal under federal law even though medical marijuana is legal in most states and recreational use is permitted in about half the country; the federal prohibition makes the legal question nationally consequential.

Background

Federal law prohibits people who are “illegal drug users” or “addicted to” certain controlled substances from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms. That statute predates the current wave of state-level cannabis legalization and has been applied unevenly, producing a range of interpretations in lower courts. Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision broadening the individual right to bear arms, federal and circuit courts have strained to define which longstanding restrictions remain consistent with the Constitution.

Social and political change around cannabis has complicated those legal questions. Medical marijuana programs now exist in most states, and roughly half the states allow recreational sale and use; at the same time, marijuana remains classified as a controlled substance under federal law. These divergent legal regimes have created practical uncertainty for users and prosecutors, and they have prompted advocacy groups on opposite sides of the usual political divide to reassess how drug policies intersect with gun rights.

The Hemani prosecution arose from a broader FBI probe in Texas. Agents found a firearm in the defendant’s residence and a small quantity of cocaine during the search; federal prosecutors charged Hemani only under the firearms statute tied to drug use. The 5th Circuit’s reversal emphasized the absence of evidence that Hemani was armed while intoxicated — a factual nuance that helped produce the current Supreme Court review.

Main Event

The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to revive Hemani’s prosecution, arguing the statute bars possession by habitual illicit-drug users and fits within historical traditions of disarming people judged dangerous. Government filings describe habitual users of illegal substances as posing particular risks when they have firearms, including the danger of impaired encounters with police.

Opposing briefs have formed an atypical coalition. The National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union both contend the federal ban is inconsistent with the Second Amendment and, in the ACLU’s view, unconstitutionally vague about what counts as a disqualifying “drug user.” Civil-liberties advocates warn prosecutors would gain excessive discretion if the law’s wording remains broad.

Gun-control and public-safety organizations, including Everytown for Gun Safety, argue the statute reflects a long-standing regulatory tradition restricting weapons for people engaged in illegal drug activity and therefore should survive constitutional scrutiny. Those groups stress public-safety rationales and historical analogues to other disqualifications, such as prohibitions tied to violent misdemeanors or domestic-violence restraining orders.

The factual record in Hemani’s case centers on his admission of frequent marijuana use and the discovery of a small quantity of cocaine; the firearms charge was the only charge brought. Lower-court disagreement about whether the statute reaches non-intoxicated possession has produced the legal conflict now before the justices.

Analysis & Implications

If the Supreme Court narrows the statute, the decision could remove a federal barrier that currently prevents many regular cannabis users from legally possessing firearms — raising practical questions in states where cannabis is legal under state law. That tension between state legalization and federal prohibition is at the heart of the controversy and could force prosecutors and courts to reconcile conflicting policy regimes.

A ruling upholding the statute would preserve a federal avenue to disarm some drug users and could be cited to justify prohibitions tied to other controlled substances. The government argues historical precedent supports disarming those judged to present special risks; opponents counter that modern drug-use patterns and state laws make a broad federal ban overbroad and vague.

Political dynamics complicate the legal calculus. The Justice Department’s defense of the law, and the Trump administration’s reported steps to reclassify cannabis, produce cross-pressures: enforcement priorities and classification choices at the federal level influence how the Second Amendment debate plays out. The Court’s conservative majority has expanded gun rights in past rulings but has also left open certain longstanding disqualifications, creating an uncertain doctrinal path for this case.

Practically, any change in the statute’s scope will affect not only prosecutors and defenders but also millions of Americans who use cannabis for medical or recreational purposes. The decision will likely shape lower-court approaches to similar prosecutions and may prompt new litigation over the statute’s reach and the meaning of “habitual” or “regular” drug use.

Comparison & Data

The table highlights how shifting state laws on cannabis and recent Supreme Court precedent create legal friction. Courts assessing the firearms ban must weigh historical analogues against modern statutory language and state-level changes in substance regulation.

Reactions & Quotes

We believe the statute’s wording gives prosecutors too much discretion and leaves everyday marijuana users uncertain about when possession of a firearm could become a federal crime.

Cecillia Wang, ACLU (legal director)

Wang’s organization frames the issue as both constitutional and due-process oriented, arguing that the term used in the statute does not clearly delimit who is covered.

The government says habitual illegal drug users with firearms pose distinct safety risks and that the law fits within historical regulatory traditions disarming particular groups.

U.S. Department of Justice (court filing)

Justice Department filings emphasize public-safety considerations and historical precedent, noting analogous disqualifications have long existed in federal law.

Prohibiting all non-intoxicated cannabis users from possessing firearms will sweep in large numbers of lawful, responsible citizens who use marijuana for common, nonviolent reasons.

Joe A. Bondy, NORML (board chair)

NORML and allied gun-rights groups argue the statute is overbroad in practice, pointing to demographic changes in cannabis use such as older adults using edibles for health reasons.

Unconfirmed

• Whether the Supreme Court will issue a broad ruling that explicitly includes or excludes non-intoxicated, regular marijuana users nationwide remains uncertain until the opinion is published.
• The long-term enforcement effects on prosecutions involving small-quantity cocaine findings alongside marijuana admissions have not been measured and are not established in the record.
• The administration’s internal plans to reclassify cannabis and how that would interact with prosecutions under the firearms statute remain procedural and subject to administrative processes.

Bottom Line

The case asks the Supreme Court to reconcile a federal firearms ban with rapidly evolving state cannabis policies and a post-2022 doctrinal landscape that expanded individual gun rights. The justices’ decision will determine whether federal prosecutors can continue to use a habitual-drug-user disqualification to block firearm possession by regular marijuana users or whether that statute must be narrowed to avoid sweeping in non-intoxicated, lawful-state-law users.

Beyond Hemani’s individual fate, the ruling will shape how courts nationwide balance public-safety arguments, historical analogues, and constitutional protections. Observers should watch the Court’s reasoning carefully: the opinion will influence prosecutions, state–federal tensions over marijuana policy, and the contours of permissible gun restrictions going forward.

Sources

• Associated Press (news report)
• ACLU (civil liberties organization)
• NORML (cannabis policy advocacy group)
• Everytown for Gun Safety (gun-safety advocacy group)
• Supreme Court of the United States (official court website)