US Supreme Court narrows gun ban for marijuana users

The US Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that a long standing federal law banning certain drug users from owning firearms cannot automatically be applied to people who use marijuana.

The US Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that a long standing federal law banning certain drug users from owning firearms cannot automatically be applied to people who use marijuana. The decision marks an important victory for gun rights supporters and limits how the government can enforce restrictions against millions of Americans who legally or illegally use cannabis.

In a unanimous ruling, the court upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss an illegal gun possession charge against Ali Hemani, a Texas resident who holds both American and Pakistani citizenship. Hemani had admitted to authorities that he regularly used marijuana, but argued that prosecuting him under the federal gun law violated his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court agreed that the government had failed to prove its case under the protections guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the court’s opinion, said prosecutors did not show that Hemani’s marijuana use made him a danger to himself or others. He also noted that the government never claimed Hemani was addicted to drugs. According to the ruling, these shortcomings made it impossible to justify taking away his constitutional right to possess a firearm.

The case also exposed a shift in the Trump administration’s legal position. While the administration defended the federal law during the proceedings, it later softened its stance by suggesting that some marijuana users should not automatically lose their gun rights. Gorsuch said this change weakened the government’s argument because it no longer supported the idea that every marijuana user should be considered unusually dangerous.

The federal restriction comes from the Gun Control Act of 1968, which makes it illegal for anyone who is an unlawful user of controlled substances to possess a firearm. Although the Supreme Court did not strike down the law itself, it ruled that the government must provide stronger evidence before applying it to individual cases. The justices stopped short of deciding exactly which drug users may still be restricted from owning guns in the future.

Hemani’s legal team welcomed the decision, saying it protects millions of Americans from severe criminal penalties based solely on marijuana use. Lawyers argued that the government had relied on broad assumptions instead of proving that Hemani posed a real threat to public safety. Civil rights advocates also praised the ruling, saying it prevents authorities from unfairly targeting large groups of people without evidence of dangerous behavior.

The gun restriction gained national attention during the prosecution of Hunter Biden, the son of former President Joe Biden. He was convicted in 2024 for falsely stating that he was not using drugs when he purchased a handgun. Later that year, he received a presidential pardon from his father before leaving office.

The Justice Department had urged the Supreme Court to compare habitual drug users with habitual drunkards, pointing to historical laws that temporarily disarmed people with alcohol related problems. However, the court rejected that comparison. Justice Gorsuch said those older laws were created for different reasons and applied in different circumstances, making them unsuitable as a legal basis for the government’s argument.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear another important gun rights case before the end of the month involving a Hawaii law that limits carrying handguns on private property that is open to the public. That ruling could further shape how the Second Amendment is interpreted across the United States.