Justices rule the government may not automatically disarm an occasional marijuana user, but stop short of striking the statute down
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the federal government cannot automatically strip an occasional marijuana user of his right to own a firearm, narrowing a provision of the federal Gun Control Act without erasing it from the books.
In United States v. Hemani, the justices found that prosecuting Ali Danial Hemani — a Texas man who told investigators he used marijuana about every other day — under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) violated his Second Amendment rights. That provision makes it a crime for anyone who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess a firearm, an offense that carries up to 15 years in prison and a lifetime firearms ban.
The judgment was unanimous, though the justices split on their reasoning. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The case
The dispute began in 2022, when FBI agents searched Hemani’s home in the Dallas area while investigating suspected terrorism-related activity. No terrorism or drug-trafficking charges were ever filed. Agents found a 9mm pistol along with roughly 60 grams of marijuana and a smaller quantity of cocaine. More than six months later, the government indicted Hemani solely on the basis of his admitted marijuana use and his ownership of the gun.
A federal district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in Hemani’s favor before the government carried the case to the Supreme Court.
The Court’s reasoning
Writing for the majority, Gorsuch said the government had asked the Court to treat every regular marijuana user as “categorically violent and dangerous” without offering any individualized proof of danger or impairment. The historical gun laws the government pointed to — including colonial-era “habitual drunkard” statutes, vagrancy laws and surety-of-the-peace requirements — did not fit, he wrote, because they “targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways.”
Gorsuch also noted the government’s own shifting posture toward marijuana, observing that federal authorities have “not just tolerated” loosening attitudes but “helped fuel them” — a reference to recent moves to reschedule the drug to a lower classification even as it remains illegal under federal law. Roughly 40 states have legalized marijuana to some degree.
The Court was careful to describe the ruling as a limited one. By Gorsuch’s account, the decision does not touch laws disarming people who are addicted or presently intoxicated, the separate ban on firearm possession by convicted felons, or future prosecutions that come with individualized proof that a defendant’s drug use makes him dangerous.
The separate opinions
Justice Thomas filed a concurrence questioning whether Congress had authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate firearm possession at all simply because the weapon once crossed state lines.
Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor, concurred but used her writing to renew her criticism of the Court’s 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen framework, which she called unworkable and prone to inconsistent application as judges reach different conclusions from the same historical record.
Justice Alito, joined by Justice Kagan, concurred only in the judgment. He emphasized changing social attitudes, comparing marijuana use today to alcohol use at the nation’s founding — widespread, increasingly accepted, and broadly tolerated by law enforcement.
Context and reaction
The ruling is the latest in a line of Second Amendment cases following Bruen and the 2024 decision United States v. Rahimi. The Justice Department estimates that roughly 300 people are charged under the drug-user firearms provision each year; the most prominent person convicted under it was Hunter Biden, who was later pardoned.
The case drew an unusual alliance. The American Civil Liberties Union served as co-counsel for Hemani, and gun-rights organizations including the National Rifle Association backed him as well. The ACLU called the outcome a protection for the rights of millions of Americans who use marijuana, while warning against arbitrary penalties.
Sources & credits
- Primary source: Opinion of the Court, United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234, 608 U.S. ___ (decided June 18, 2026), U.S. Supreme Court (public-domain federal court document). Direct quotations are taken from the Court’s opinion.
- Reporting consulted: SCOTUSblog, NPR, CBS News, and the National Constitution Center for case background and reaction.
- Item flagged via: The Epoch Times, “Supreme Court Narrows Law That Bars Drug Users From Owning Guns,” by Stacy Robinson (June 18, 2026).
Editorial note: This article was written from the underlying court record and independent reporting; no copyrighted text from the originating outlets has been reproduced.
