DOJ Tells Supreme Court That Federal Gun Ban For Marijuana Users Must Be Upheld—Even If Trump’s Rescheduling Order Is Finalized
Federal gun ban for marijuana users heads to the Supreme Court, and DOJ wants the padlock to stay snapped shut. That’s the headline, the barroom whisper, the kind of line you hear over a late whiskey when policy and people collide. The Justice Department is pressing the justices to uphold Section 922(g)(3), the federal rule that says if you use cannabis, you can’t legally own or possess a gun—full stop. Even if marijuana gets nudged to Schedule III under an executive order signed by President Trump, DOJ’s message is blunt: cannabis use, in their telling, marks you as uniquely risky. The Controlled Substances Act still has marijuana parked in Schedule I today, they stress, and history—those treasured analogues from the founding era—allegedly backs disarming users of “dangerous” substances. It’s a Second Amendment showdown welded to modern marijuana policy reform, and it’s moving fast.
The case is U.S. v. Hemani. Trump-appointed Solicitor General D. John Sauer wants the Court to reverse a lower court that found the categorical gun ban unconstitutional. He frames rescheduling as a future-tense maybe—rulemaking still in motion, not a magic pardon for past conduct. Even at Schedule III, DOJ notes, a drug still carries an abuse potential. Oral arguments land on March 2, and the docket is crowded with amici who see the world through very different lenses. Gun-rights groups and cannabis advocates argue there’s no founding-era twin for this modern ban; that it crumbles under the Court’s text-and-history test. Meanwhile, 19 state attorneys general and Washington, D.C., back the statute, warning that “habitual users” mix intoxication with firepower. ATF has floated an interim fix around who counts as an “unlawful user,” trying to narrow the dragnet, but the government hasn’t blinked on the core principle: cannabis consumers and guns should not legally mix.
Lower courts have been treating this like a tasting menu of constitutional flavors—some smoky, some bitter, none settled. The Tenth Circuit backed a district court that tossed charges against a driver caught with a handgun and cannabis in Oklahoma, signaling that a flat ban collides with the Second Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit recently handed medical marijuana patients a win on gun possession rights. The Eighth Circuit vacated a conviction and asked a hard question: did cannabis make this person a real threat, or are we leaning on stereotypes? The Third Circuit wants “individualized judgments,” not one-size-fits-all disarmament. Elsewhere, a Rhode Island judge found the ban unconstitutional as applied to two defendants, and a Texas court said the same for a so-called habitual user—tearing up a guilty plea in the process. The Supreme Court has already swatted away some petitions and left others brewing. If the justices bless 922(g)(3), the government’s backlog of cases likely slides into the win column. If they torch it, expect a new, messier map—danger assessed by evidence, not labels.
All this courtroom theater plays out while the country argues over cannabis with the intensity of a family feud. One state cracks down on hemp THC beverages; another tries to sell low-THC sippers next to chardonnay. Voters in red and blue zip codes decide whether a joint is a crime or a commodity. That churn matters here. When the law invites you to buy cannabis on Main Street but threatens your gun rights at the counter, people fall into traps they can’t see. For a taste of how fractured the rules have become, look at the bans and green lights ricocheting across the map—like Missouri House Passes Bill To Ban Hemp THC Drinks, Gummies And Other Products and, in a stark contrast, New York Liquor Stores Could Sell Low-THC Cannabis Beverages Under Newly Filed Bills. Reform isn’t linear either: Marijuana Legalization Is On The Ballot In Texas During The Primary Election That’s Happening Now, while the islands play small ball with Hawaii Senators Approve Limited Marijuana Legalization Bill After House Punts On Reform For 2026. One patch invites, another forbids, and federal gun law sits like a tripwire across both.
The stakes aren’t academic. They’re the hunters who use medical cannabis to sleep through their pain, the veterans who choose a plant over a pill, the rural worker who checks the box on a federal gun form and wonders which answer ruins his week. ATF’s tweaks might narrow the definition of “unlawful user,” but forms and footnotes won’t solve the core contradiction: an Executive Branch flirting with rescheduling while its lawyers argue that cannabis use justifies disarmament. The Court’s text-and-history method demands more than vibes; it wants proof that yesterday’s rules map onto today’s realities. If the justices demand evidence of dangerousness—real, individualized evidence—the legal cannabis consumer might finally step out from under a crossfire of labels. Until then, know the line you’re walking, and make your choices with eyes open. And if you’re looking to keep your shelf stocked while the policy dust settles, you can find what you need here: https://thcaorder.com/shop/.
