Supreme Court Hears Case on Marijuana Users' Second Amendment Gun Rights

Trump DOJ Defends Federal Ban as Biden Admin Raises Concerns

Published on Mar. 2, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in a case that will determine the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting people who use marijuana from owning or possessing firearms. The Trump administration's Justice Department is defending the law, while civil rights groups and gun organizations argue it infringes on Second Amendment rights. The case comes as the Biden administration has expressed concerns about potential legal liability for prosecuting cannabis consumers under the federal gun statute.

Why it matters

This case has significant implications for the intersection of marijuana legalization and gun rights. A ruling upholding the federal ban could mean continued restrictions for cannabis users, while a decision striking down the law could open up firearm access for this population in states where marijuana is legal.

The details

The case, U.S. vs. Hemani, challenges the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(3) of federal law, which prohibits people who use marijuana from owning or possessing firearms. The Trump administration has argued that cannabis users pose a unique danger and that the law is consistent with historical precedent of disarming 'dangerous' individuals. However, civil rights groups and gun organizations contend the policy represents an unconstitutional infringement of Second Amendment rights, especially as more states legalize marijuana.

  • The Supreme Court hearing is taking place on March 2, 2026.
  • In December 2025, the Trump administration directed the expeditious finalization of a rule to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act.
  • In December 2025, 19 states and Washington, D.C. filed a brief siding with the federal government in the Hemani case.

The players

U.S. vs. Hemani

A case before the Supreme Court that will determine the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting people who use marijuana from owning or possessing firearms.

Trump Administration

The Department of Justice under the Trump administration is defending the federal ban on gun ownership by marijuana users.

Biden Administration

The Justice Department under the Biden administration has expressed concerns about potential legal liability for prosecuting cannabis consumers under the federal gun statute.

ACLU

A civil rights group that is among the attorneys representing the defendant, Ali Danial Hemani, in challenging the constitutionality of the federal gun ban for marijuana users.

National Rifle Association (NRA)

A gun organization that has argued the current policy represents a misguided categorical infringement of Second Amendment rights for 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)

“Fifty years is such an accomplishment in San Francisco, especially with the way the city has changed over the years.”

— Gordon Edgar, Grocery employee (Instagram)

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide on Tuesday whether or not to allow Walker Reed Quinn out on bail.

The takeaway

This case highlights growing concerns in the community about repeat offenders released on bail, raising questions about bail reform, public safety on SF streets, and if any special laws to govern autonomous vehicles in residential and commercial areas.