Trump DOJ Asks Supreme Court For Delayed Schedule In Case On Marijuana Users’ Gun Rights
Marijuana users’ gun rights, Section 922(g)(3), and the Supreme Court’s late-night docket
Marijuana users’ gun rights are officially in the Supreme Court’s crosshairs. The Justice Department just asked for extra time to file briefs in U.S. v. Hemani, the case that could decide whether the federal ban on firearm possession by people who use cannabis—Section 922(g)(3)—survives the Second Amendment’s stress test. It’s a procedural move, sure, but in the nation’s highest-stakes barroom, timing matters. Prosecutors want to nudge their opening brief from early December to December 12, with the respondent’s brief sliding to late January and replies stretching into February 2026. Both sides consent. The stakes aren’t polite; they never are when constitutional rights meet 21st-century cannabis normalization and the cold, stubborn machinery of federal gun laws.
Picking a case like you pick a bar fight
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, a Trump appointee, is steering the government’s ship here, and he’s argued with drumbeat regularity that 922(g)(3) targets a “dangerous” class—“habitual” illegal drug users—who can’t be trusted with firearms. The twist: “habitual” isn’t in the statute. Congress wrote “unlawful user or addicted to any controlled substance.” That’s broad by design, vague by effect. The government seems content with that vagueness, and perhaps that’s why Hemani is their preferred battleground. The defendant isn’t just a marijuana consumer; there are allegations of cocaine use, past drug sales, and foreign ties that make for an unsympathetic portrait. If you’re the DOJ, you pick the fight you think you can win. But constitutional law isn’t supposed to turn on the least sympathetic face; it’s supposed to set a standard everyone has to live with—veteran, nurse, contractor, neighbor—whether their weed is a Friday night edible or a medical card necessity.
The circuit split and Bruen’s demand for history
Lower courts haven’t been singing the same tune. Since the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision told judges to anchor gun restrictions to the nation’s historical tradition, 922(g)(3) has looked wobbly in places. The Tenth Circuit upheld a district court’s dismissal of a marijuana-and-handgun case, stressing the government must prove non-intoxicated cannabis users pose a real risk of future danger. The Eleventh Circuit has backed medical patients who want to keep their rights. The Eighth vacated a conviction and told the district court to actually find, not assume, dangerousness. And the Third said judges need “individualized judgments,” not one-size-fits-all bans. Against that backdrop, the government’s historical analogues—old laws disarming Catholics, loyalists, slaves, and Native people—land like sour notes in a modern key. Meanwhile, alcohol users can drink on Saturday and lawfully own a shotgun on Sunday. Consumers are voting with their wallets, too; even legacy liquor is feeling the draft as more people swap the burn for the bloom, a shift captured in Whiskey Company Scales Back Operations, Citing ‘Consumer Shifts’ Toward Marijuana As Alcohol Alternative. The health ledger isn’t simple, but it’s not stacked against cannabis the way federal rhetoric suggests; consider emerging data like Frequent Marijuana Use Is Tied To Lower Risk Of Liver Disease From Alcohol, New Study Finds. If the law’s logic is “safety,” courts increasingly want evidence, not vibes.
States improvise while Washington tunes its instruments
While SCOTUS lines up its questions, states are jamming in different keys. Some lawmakers want medical cannabis cardholders to be able to carry, period. Others doubled down, warning that participation in new medical programs could cost residents their firearms under federal law—even if nobody expects them to hand over granddad’s .22. Ballot measures have tried, failed, and tried again to reconcile cannabis rights with carry permits. And politics, forever politics: candidates who court cannabis consumers stand to gain if they actually show up with a plan, not a slogan—see New Jersey Gubernatorial Candidates Need To Step Up For Cannabis Consumers (Op-Ed). At the same time, public health and safety are evolving fast. Ohio, for example, is investing in frontline training for the psychoactive landscape we actually live in, not the one we pretended we did twenty years ago; context that matters when we talk “dangerousness” and policy modernity, as in Ohio Health Agency Grants $400,000 To Fund Psychedelics Education And Training For First Responders, Doctors And More. The country is updating its manuals in real time, even if the federal firearms statute still reads like a stubborn relic.
What happens if the Court buys, sells, or splits the bill
If the justices declare 922(g)(3) constitutional in broad strokes, the government will pocket quick wins in the trailing cases. Cannabis users—even those following state law—would remain boxed out of firearm ownership until Congress writes something different. If the Court narrows the statute’s reach, we’ll see more trials where prosecutors must prove an actual, individualized risk, rather than hanging an entire group with a label. Either way, the decision will ripple through the Michigan grower, the Oklahoma patient, the Pennsylvania hunter, the Colorado hobbyist. This isn’t an abstract debate—it’s about whether a responsible adult who prefers a legal joint to a legal drink forfeits a constitutional right while their neighbor polishing a bourbon tumbler does not. The house rules are changing; know them before you sit down at the table. And if you’re curious where compliant hemp fits into this evolving map, take a quiet stroll through our inventory here: https://thcaorder.com/shop/.
