Supreme Court Rules Federal Gun Ban Cannot Be Applied Solely to Marijuana Users

Supreme Court Limits Federal Gun Ban for Casual Marijuana Users in Unanimous Ruling

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that a federal law banning gun possession by unlawful users of controlled substances cannot be applied solely on the basis of casual marijuana use, marking a significant Second Amendment victory for a Texas gun owner and potentially affecting hundreds of federal prosecutions each year.

In a 9-0 decision, the court sided with Ali Danial Hemani, a Texas man who admitted to using marijuana several times a week while keeping a Glock 9mm pistol in his home. Hemani was charged under a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 that makes it a felony for anyone who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess a firearm.

Writing for the court, Justice Neil Gorsuch said the ruling was a narrow one and did not invalidate the law altogether. Instead, he concluded that the government cannot imprison someone or permanently strip firearm rights simply because that person uses marijuana occasionally without showing that the individual poses a danger to others.

“We appreciate drugs and guns can sometimes make for a dangerous mix,” Gorsuch wrote. But he added that the government had failed to show that Hemani’s marijuana use made him dangerous.

The ruling leaves intact other parts of the federal statute, including restrictions on firearm possession by drug addicts, intoxicated individuals, and people deemed a danger to themselves or others. Legal analysts said future prosecutions will likely require evidence connecting a defendant’s drug use to actual public-safety concerns.

The case arrives as marijuana legalization has expanded across the country. More than 40 states now allow cannabis use in some form, even though marijuana remains illegal under federal law. Civil liberties groups praised the decision, arguing that it protects millions of Americans from losing constitutional rights based solely on marijuana use.

Gun rights organizations also welcomed the outcome, while gun-safety advocates emphasized that the court preserved the government’s ability to restrict firearm access for dangerous individuals.

The decision stems from a challenge that succeeded first in federal district court and later before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, both of which found the law unconstitutional as applied to Hemani. The Supreme Court’s ruling now makes that limitation binding nationwide.