The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that federal law cannot categorically bar gun ownership by people who regularly use marijuana, striking down the government's attempt to disarm a Texas man who used cannabis every other day without evidence he posed a danger to others.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion in the case of Ali Danial Hemani, a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan who was indicted in 2023 on a single count of violating the federal anti-guns-and-drugs law after an FBI search of his family's home turned up a Glock 9mm pistol and 60 grams of pot. Hemani was not charged with any other crimes or accused of using the weapon under the influence, though the Justice Department accused him of dealing drugs, using cocaine and sympathizing with Iran.
A Narrow Ruling on Gun Access
Gorsuch wrote that the opinion narrowly limits the government's power to take guns away from drug users who are not considered dangerous. "We do not address efforts to ban addicts, or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm," he wrote. Prosecutors could still charge a marijuana user if they had evidence the person was dangerous, he said. The court said the government had not shown that Hemani was dangerous and rejected the argument that anyone who regularly uses marijuana is categorically violent and dangerous without any further showing.
The decision is a loss for President Donald Trump's Republican administration, which defended the 1968 law. Gorsuch wrote that the administration's core argument "fails under every measure." The Trump administration had argued that guns and drugs are a dangerous combination. The Justice Department said about 300 people have been charged with violating the law annually, and a conviction can carry a 15-year prison sentence.
Historical Context and Modern Reality
The law was enacted partly in response to the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. It created classes of people the federal government could disarm, including those convicted of felonies or dishonorably discharged from the military. The drug provision covers people who are addicted to drugs and those who are an "unlawful user." The opinion said the law was originally meant to keep guns away from dangerous people, but that the millions of people who now use marijuana cannot all be characterized that way.
Gorsuch wrote, "Whatever one thinks of these developments, the federal government has not just tolerated them; it helped fuel them," and added, "All of which leaves it awkwardly positioned to suggest that the millions of Americans who now regularly use marijuana are categorically and unusually dangerous." The case reached the court amid shifting views on marijuana use, with roughly half of U.S. states allowing recreational use and an even higher share allowing medicinal use. The Trump administration reclassified medical marijuana as a less-dangerous drug in April, but recreational use remains illegal under federal law.
Unusual Political Alliances
The case drew unusual political alliances. The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association supported Hemani's case, as did cannabis legalization groups such as NORML. Gun safety groups including Everytown opposed the administration on Second Amendment issues. The ACLU said nearly half of Americans have reported using marijuana at some point in their lives. Cecillia Wang, legal director at the ACLU, said, "The court has sent a strong message that the government cannot criminalize the conduct of large numbers of people by making categorical and unfounded assumptions about whether they are dangerous."
NORML called the ruling a "vindication of personal freedom," and the Second Amendment Foundation called it a "major victory for gun owners." Smart Approaches to Marijuana condemned the decision. CEO Kevin Sabet said, "While the justices in this case appear to be most concerned with historical battles over Second Amendment rights, public health and safety are the collateral damage in this decision." Everytown said the decision still recognizes that "drugs and guns can make for a dangerous mix."
Legal Precedent and Future Questions
The ruling is the latest in a series of firearm cases to reach the Supreme Court since its landmark decision in the fourth year expanding gun rights. Since then, the court has upheld a law aimed at protecting victims of domestic violence and strict regulations on ghost gun kits, but has struck down a ban on bump stocks, an accessory that enables rapid fire. The justices are also considering a second firearm case this term over strict regulations on carrying guns in Hawaii.
A federal district court in Texas had dismissed the charge against Hemani, pointing to the Supreme Court's decision in the fourth year in Bruen. The conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, saying the historical record points only to laws that barred guns for Americans who are actively intoxicated or under the influence of drugs at the time of their arrest. The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court last year.
The Trump administration argued that colonial-era gun prohibitions dealing with public drunkenness showed governments historically could disarm people who were frequently inebriated. Lawyers for Hemani and a coalition of groups supporting access to marijuana said those historic laws were not analogous because they restricted firearms only for people who were actively intoxicated. At least 43 states have similar laws restricting access to firearms for drug users, but opponents noted that most of those laws define the people who could be disarmed as "habitual" users, a word that does not appear in the federal statute.
The opinion was described as exceedingly limited, reserving broader questions about whether federal prosecutors could target people who are addicted to drugs or whose use of drugs makes them a danger to themselves or others. Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center, said, "The court seems to have gone out of its way to avoid deciding any bigger questions about whether it's constitutional to criminalize gun possession by drug addicts; by individuals who are actually intoxicated; or in other circumstances in which the defendant is not obviously dangerous," and added, "But it's only a matter of time before those questions will come back to the Court, in cases in which it will be harder for the justices to punt."
The law was also used in a case against Hunter Biden, who was convicted in Wilmington, Delaware, in the eighth year of buying a gun while addicted to cocaine. He was later pardoned by his father, Democratic President Joe Biden. His lawyer, Zachary Newland, said Hemani was thankful he "finally has closure."
Why This Matters:
This decision highlights the tension between outdated federal drug policy and evolving state laws that have legalized marijuana for millions of Americans. By requiring the government to prove individual dangerousness rather than relying on categorical prohibitions, the ruling protects people from losing constitutional rights based solely on conduct that is legal in many states and increasingly accepted nationwide. The case underscores how federal law can criminalize the behavior of large populations without evidence of harm, raising questions about equal justice and the disproportionate impact of drug enforcement. With nearly half of Americans having used marijuana at some point and recreational use legal in roughly half of states, the ruling prevents the government from stripping rights from millions based on assumptions rather than evidence. The decision also reflects the need for federal policy to align with scientific understanding and public health approaches to cannabis, rather than treating all users as inherently dangerous. As marijuana policy continues to evolve, this ruling establishes that individual rights cannot be suspended without specific evidence of risk.