Supreme Court Appears Likely to Protect Gun Rights for Marijuana Users

Justices question federal law banning 'unlawful users' of marijuana from possessing firearms

Published on Mar. 2, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

During oral arguments in United States v. Hemani, a majority of the Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of a federal law that prohibits 'unlawful users' of marijuana from possessing firearms. The justices seemed divided on the legal rationale, with some questioning the broader framework for Second Amendment cases, while others focused on whether marijuana users pose a sufficient danger to justify disarmament.

Why it matters

This case highlights the ongoing tension between federal drug laws and the Second Amendment, as the Court grapples with how to apply its previous ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires courts to analyze the constitutionality of modern gun laws based on historical analogues. The outcome could have significant implications for the rights of marijuana users to own firearms.

The details

The case centers on Ali Danial Hemani, a criminal defendant who uses marijuana a few times a week. The Trump administration defended the federal law, pointing to historical bans on gun ownership by 'habitual drunkards.' However, several justices questioned whether those historical laws are truly analogous, given that early Americans drank far more alcohol than modern users of marijuana. The justices also debated whether the courts or Congress should play the primary role in determining which drugs are dangerous enough to warrant disarming their users.

  • The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Hemani on March 2, 2026.

The players

Ali Danial Hemani

A criminal defendant who uses marijuana a few times a week and is challenging the federal law prohibiting 'unlawful users' of marijuana from possessing firearms.

Ketanji Brown Jackson

A Supreme Court justice who, along with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, suggested that Congress should play the primary role in determining which drugs are dangerous enough to warrant disarming their users.

Amy Coney Barrett

A Supreme Court justice who suggested that the courts, and not Congress, should have the dominant role in deciding who is too dangerous to own a gun.

Neil Gorsuch

A Supreme Court justice who appeared most committed to the historical framework established in the Court's previous Bruen decision, and questioned whether any historical bans on gun ownership by drug users are sufficiently analogous to the law at issue in Hemani.

James Madison

A founding-era luminary who, according to Justice Gorsuch, drank a tankard of whiskey a day, suggesting that early Americans were far more frequently under the influence of alcohol than modern marijuana users.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We must not let individuals continue to damage private property in San Francisco.”

— Robert Jenkins, San Francisco resident (San Francisco Chronicle)

What’s next

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in United States v. Hemani by the end of the current term.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing challenges the Supreme Court faces in applying its previous Bruen decision, which has led to widespread confusion among lower courts. The Court's ruling in Hemani could have significant implications for the rights of marijuana users to own firearms, as the justices grapple with the intersection of federal drug laws and the Second Amendment.