Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Case On Gun Rights Of People Who Use Marijuana And Other Illegal Drugs

Gun rights for marijuana users heads to the Supreme Court

Gun rights for marijuana users just landed squarely in the Supreme Court’s lap, and the stakes are as American as a neon-lit bar at last call. The justices agreed to hear U.S. v. Hemani, a case that will probe whether Section 922(g)(3) of federal law—barring people who use illegal drugs from buying or possessing firearms—actually squares with the Second Amendment. It’s the kind of constitutional collision that makes lawyers salivate and regular people roll their eyes: a culture war wrapped in statutory text. The Department of Justice, under a hard-edged law-and-order posture, has urged the Court to bless the ban. With lower courts split, the high court’s take will set the table for everyone else. If you’re looking for the paper trail, the Court’s own docket for Hemani is right there in the public record, and the justices’ choice to take this one signals a coming answer to a question that’s been simmering like chili on a low flame: can the government keep cannabis consumers locked out of the gun counter simply for lighting up, regardless of state legalization’s march?

Here’s the meat of it. The statute doesn’t say “habitual users,” “heavy users,” or even “problem users.” It says an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” can’t possess firearms or ammunition. That’s a wide net. The government has tried to narrow it in court filings by emphasizing “habitual” use—language you won’t find in the statute itself—arguing the restriction is temporary and self-lifting: stop using, get your rights back. It paints a tidy picture. But the real world is messy. People inhale, imbibe, and microdose in states where cannabis is legal under local law, then run smack into a federal prohibition that treats them like one indistinguishable category of risk. The question isn’t whether there are dangerous people—there are. It’s whether Congress can brand every “unlawful user” with the same scarlet letter and call it constitutional history. That’s where the Second Amendment analysis turns into a history lesson, and lately, lower courts haven’t been singing from the same hymnal.

The government’s choice of vehicle is no accident. Hemani isn’t just about a person caught with a joint and a pistol. The defendant reportedly used marijuana and cocaine, with prior drug-related sales in the story arc—a less sympathetic lead for a test case, and one that DOJ likely prefers to put in front of the justices. Meanwhile, other challenges are waiting in the wings as the Court sorts the queue. One petition fizzled out recently, while a couple more hover in docket limbo. If the Court says 922(g)(3) passes constitutional muster, expect those appeals to fold like lawn chairs. If the Court says no, the federal government will have to rethink a rule that treats a medical cannabis cardholder the same as a trafficker. The Court’s sparse order sheet—those spare lines that decide who gets a hearing and who doesn’t—has already signaled where the justices want this fight: right here, on Hemani’s ground.

Zoom out and you see a broader policy whiplash. On one channel, federal lawyers insist cannabis users can’t be trusted with firearms; on another, the political world keeps dangling reform. Rescheduling talk has become a Beltway parlor game, with delays drawing heat from lawmakers who say the administration keeps tapping the brakes. For a sense of that tension, see Senator Says It’s ‘Extremely Concerning’ Trump Has Delayed Marijuana Rescheduling After Pledging Action Two Months Ago. And then there are the headline-grabbing contradictions—grand gestures to industry even as prohibition-era rules linger in the code, like the episode captured in Trump Taps Marijuana Industry ‘Visionary’ As Special Envoy To Iraq. If rescheduling moves forward, Congress might finally smell the coffee and harmonize gun policy with modern cannabis reality; if you want the Hill’s pulse, read Would Trump rescheduling cannabis boost reform in Congress? (Newsletter: October 20, 2025). Until then, the legal cannabis market will keep colliding with federal firearms rules, and everyday consumers—veterans, patients, the curious and the careful—will live in the crossfire.

At street level, the contradictions get sharper. States build regulated cannabis markets while federal forms still force buyers to declare they’re not “unlawful users,” daring them to lie or walk away. In some places, even medical programs are strained by politics. Consider the pushback chronicled in Nebraska Medical Marijuana Supporters Slam Restrictive Rules Proposed By Governor-Appointed Panel: a reminder that reform isn’t linear. So picture the Supreme Court’s conference room on a gray morning: history books open, briefs piled high, reality peeking through the blinds. Gun policy. Cannabis policy. Two American obsessions circling the same drain. However Hemani lands, it will ripple across dispensaries, ranges, and living rooms where people just want clear rules that aren’t written in disappearing ink. And if you’d rather focus on the plant, the craft, and the calm—no courtroom drama required—take a quiet detour and visit our shop: https://thcaorder.com/shop/.