Cannabis consumers who own firearms remain in legal jeopardy under federal law, even in states where marijuana is legal—a contradiction that is now headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
At issue is a federal statute that bars firearm possession by anyone deemed an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance, a category that includes marijuana under federal law. Nineteen states, including several that have legalized cannabis for medical or recreational use, are urging the Supreme Court to uphold the prohibition as constitutional when the Court hears arguments on March 2.
The case centers on Ali Hemani, a Texas man charged with illegal gun possession after an FBI search of his home uncovered a Glock 19 pistol, approximately two ounces of marijuana and less than a gram of cocaine. While Hemani was not accused of using a firearm while intoxicated or committing a violent offense, federal prosecutors argued that his cannabis use alone made his gun possession illegal.
Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld a lower court’s dismissal of the gun charge, relying on a 2024 decision that found such prosecutions incompatible with the Second Amendment. The appeals court concluded that disarming a sober person based solely on past or occasional drug use is not supported by the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, the constitutional test adopted by the Supreme Court in 2022.
The Trump administration has asked the high court to reverse that ruling. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues that unlawful drug users, including cannabis consumers and state-registered medical patients, pose inherent public safety risks that justify a categorical firearms ban. Sauer likens drug users to “habitual drunkards” who historically faced confinement or other restrictions.
Critics counter that the law functions more like a blanket ban on gun ownership by alcohol consumers—an approach that would almost certainly violate the Constitution. They argue that the statute imposes severe criminal penalties without requiring any evidence of dangerous behavior.
States supporting the federal government say the 5th Circuit’s ruling hampers their ability to prevent firearms from reaching people likely to misuse them. Yet opponents note the inconsistency of that position in states that regulate marijuana similarly to alcohol and allow its sale through licensed businesses.
The Supreme Court’s decision could have sweeping implications for millions of cannabis consumers nationwide, clarifying whether federal gun restrictions can continue to apply based solely on marijuana use that is otherwise legal under state law.
Read the whole article from Reason.com here.
