The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that federal authorities cannot automatically strip gun rights from regular marijuana users, delivering a significant check on government power to disarm citizens without proving they pose a danger. The decision, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, found that the Justice Department's application of a 1968 federal law to Ali Danial Hemani—a Texas man who used marijuana about every other day—violated the Second Amendment because prosecutors failed to demonstrate he was dangerous.
The ruling represents a rare defeat for President Donald Trump's administration, which had defended the broad federal statute allowing gun confiscation from anyone classified as "an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." Gorsuch wrote that the administration's core argument "fails under every measure," emphasizing that the government cannot categorically disarm millions of Americans who use marijuana without individualized evidence of dangerousness.
The Case and Its Limits
Hemani, a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan, was indicted in 2023 after an FBI search of his family's home uncovered a Glock 9mm pistol and 60 grams of marijuana. While the Justice Department accused Hemani of dealing drugs, using cocaine and sympathizing with Iran, he was not charged with any other crimes or accused of using the weapon under the influence. His lawyer, Zachary Newland, said Hemani was thankful he "finally has closure."
Gorsuch carefully limited the opinion's scope, writing that the court did not address "efforts to ban addicts, or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm." Prosecutors could still charge marijuana users if they presented evidence the person was dangerous, he noted. The decision narrowly constrains the government's power to disarm drug users who cannot be shown to pose a threat.
Historical Context and Federal Overreach
The 1968 law was enacted partly in response to the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., creating classes of people the federal government could disarm, including convicted felons and those dishonorably discharged from the military. The drug provision covers both addicts and "unlawful users." The Justice Department said about 300 people have been charged annually under the statute, with convictions carrying potential 15-year prison sentences.
Gorsuch noted the law was originally intended to keep guns from dangerous individuals, but that the millions of Americans who now use marijuana cannot all be characterized that way. He pointedly observed the federal government's contradictory position: "Whatever one thinks of these developments, the federal government has not just tolerated them; it helped fuel them. 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 in the fourth year since the landmark 2022 Bruen decision expanding gun rights, amid shifting views on marijuana use. Roughly half of U.S. states now allow recreational use, with an even higher share permitting medicinal use. The Trump administration reclassified medical marijuana as a less-dangerous drug in April, though recreational use remains federally illegal.
Unusual Political Coalitions
The case drew unexpected alliances. The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association both supported Hemani, as did cannabis legalization groups such as NORML. Gun safety groups including Everytown opposed the administration on Second Amendment grounds. The ACLU noted nearly half of Americans have reported using marijuana at some point in their lives.
John Commerford, executive director of the lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association, called the decision a "major victory for the Second Amendment and peaceable gun owners across America." He said, "No one should be deprived of their God-given right to keep and bear arms for engaging in nonviolent conduct, and there is no historical justification for doing so." The Second Amendment Foundation called it a "major victory for gun owners."
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."
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
A federal district court in Texas had dismissed the charge against Hemani, pointing to the Supreme Court's 2022 decision 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.
During oral arguments in March, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump nominee, asked whether a person taking Ambien without a prescription would be covered under the law. 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 marijuana access groups 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 firearm access for drug users, but opponents noted that most define the people who could be disarmed as "habitual" users, a word that does not appear in the federal statute.
The law was also used in a case against Hunter Biden, who was convicted in the eighth year since buying a gun while addicted to cocaine in 2018. He was later pardoned by his father, Democratic President Joe Biden. CNN said President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, was convicted in 2024 of the same law, though that involved his addiction to crack cocaine.
Leigh Rome, senior litigation attorney with the Giffords Law Center, said the decision "continues to allow the government to enact and enforce reasonable categorical prohibitions on firearms ownership."
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." He 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."
Why This Matters:
This unanimous decision establishes a crucial principle: the federal government cannot disarm citizens based solely on categorical assumptions about behavior without proving individual dangerousness. The ruling protects constitutional rights for millions of Americans who use marijuana in states where it is legal or decriminalized, preventing blanket federal enforcement that contradicts state-level policy decisions and the administration's own reclassification of marijuana as less dangerous. The decision forces prosecutors to meet a higher evidentiary standard before stripping gun rights, reinforcing individual liberty and limiting government overreach. However, the court's narrow framing leaves significant questions unresolved about restrictions on addicts or intoxicated individuals, ensuring continued litigation over the balance between Second Amendment rights and public safety concerns. The case also highlights the federal government's contradictory position on marijuana policy, having encouraged state-level legalization while simultaneously using federal law to disarm users.