Supreme Court Rules Federal Gun Ban For Marijuana Users Unconstitutional

In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal government violated the Second Amendment by prosecuting a marijuana user solely for possessing a firearm. The ruling significantly curtails the reach of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which makes it a federal crime for any “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess a firearm, and represents the latest in a series of decisions expanding gun rights since the Court’s landmark 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.

This landmark decision solidifies a foundational issue surrounding the Second Amendment and its intersection with marijuana; that those that possess marijuana or use marijuana are not inherently dangerous persons and, therefore, entitled to Second Amendment protections.

BACKGROUND

Ali Danial Hemani is a dual U.S.-Pakistani citizen who lived and worked in the Dallas, Texas area. In 2022, federal agents searched his family home in connection with a terrorism-related investigation. During the search, agents discovered a Glock 9mm pistol and approximately 60 grams of marijuana. Hemani cooperated fully with authorities and voluntarily disclosed that he used marijuana approximately every other day. No terrorism charges were ever filed. More than six months after the search, the government charged Hemani with a single count of illegal firearm possession under § 922(g)(3), relying solely on his admitted marijuana use as the basis for the charge.

Hemani moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the statute violated his Second Amendment rights as applied to him. The Fifth Circuit agreed and dismissed the charge, holding that the firearm ban cannot constitutionally be applied to individuals who are not under the influence of drugs at the time they possess a weapon. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed.

THE COURT’S RULING

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Gorsuch applied the historical tradition test established in Bruen, which requires that any firearm regulation be consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of gun regulation dating to the founding era. The Court found that the government failed to meet that burden.

The government had argued that marijuana users are categorically dangerous and pointed to historical laws disarming “habitual drunkards” as analogous precedent. The Court rejected that comparison, finding the historical analogy far too imprecise to justify stripping Second Amendment rights from tens of millions of Americans who use marijuana, a substance that is now legal to some degree in more than 40 states, without any individualized showing of dangerousness.

The Court also took aim at the statute’s vagueness, noting that § 922(g)(3) does not define “unlawful user,” leaving unanswered whether someone who uses marijuana once a year, once a month, or once a week qualifies for criminal prosecution and permanent disarmament.

IMPORTANT LIMITATIONS OF THE RULING

Justice Gorsuch was careful to limit the scope of the decision. The Court expressly did not rule on:

• Prosecutions of individuals who are actively intoxicated while in possession of a firearm;
• Laws targeting persons addicted to controlled substances;
• Cases in which the government presents individualized evidence that a defendant’s drug use renders them a specific danger to themselves or others;
• Whether Congress could enact more narrowly tailored legislation targeting drug users who demonstrably pose a risk of firearm misuse;
• The constitutionality of § 922(g)(3) as applied to users of drugs other than marijuana.

The Court also left open the possibility that the statute could survive constitutional scrutiny in cases involving FDA-approved marijuana products or those covered by a state-issued medical marijuana license, though it declined to resolve those questions today.

KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR CLIENTS

• Federal prosecutors can no longer sustain a § 922(g)(3) charge based solely on a defendant’s marijuana use, without more.
• The statute remains potentially viable against individuals who are intoxicated while armed or against whom the government can demonstrate specific dangerousness.
• Cannabis industry operators, firearms dealers, and compliance officers should reassess internal protocols in light of this ruling, particularly regarding employee screening and background check procedures.
• Individuals previously convicted under § 922(g)(3) based solely on marijuana use, without accompanying evidence of dangerousness or intoxication, should consult with counsel immediately regarding potential avenues for post-conviction relief, including motions to vacate or sentence reduction.
• The decision is likely to spawn further litigation challenging § 922(g)(3) as applied to users of other controlled substances.

Clark Hill will continue to monitor developments in this area. Please contact us to further discuss how this decision may affect you or your business.