Supreme Court rules against federal gun restriction for drug users

Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the federal government cannot automatically disarm people for casual marijuana use, finding prosecution for firearm possession inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

Objective Facts

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of Ali Hemani in a unanimous decision, finding that his prosecution for having a firearm while an unlawful drug user is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Hemani was only an occasional user of marijuana when the FBI found a handgun at his Texas home in 2022. Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by six other justices, found that possession or use of an illegal drug such as marijuana could not be used to deprive Americans of their right to bear arms without other court process. The law forbids an unlawful drug user from possessing firearms with violators facing up to 15 years in prison, with the Justice Department estimating roughly 300 people are charged with the offense each year. The case created unusual political alliances with gun rights organizations and civil liberties advocates supporting Hemani, while the Trump administration's defense was supported by California, other liberal states, and Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control nonprofit.

Left-Leaning Perspective

The ACLU cheered the Supreme Court's decision, saying it makes it clear the government cannot make it a crime for people who use marijuana to own a gun. ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang argued that 'with nearly half of Americans reporting marijuana use at some point in their lives, this ruling protects the rights of millions and curbs the government's ability to impose arbitrary and discriminatory penalties'. Wang further stated: 'The court has sent a strong message that the government cannot criminalize the conduct of large numbers of people by making categorical and unfounded assumptions about whether they are dangerous'. The Trump administration's defense of the law was supported by California and some other liberal states, as well as Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit that advocates for gun control. Gun violence prevention groups like the Brady Center for Prevent Gun Violence and Giffords Law Center backed the government position, with Giffords' Leigh Rome arguing: 'Since our nation's founding, commonsense restrictions for owning firearms have been a part of our laws. Today's opinion continues to allow the government to enact and enforce reasonable categorical prohibitions on firearms ownership'. Left-leaning coverage emphasizing civil liberties highlights arbitrary government power and vague statutes, but downplays the gun safety implications that organizations like Everytown and Giffords Center stress. The progressive civil liberties framing treats this as a privacy and individual rights victory, while gun control advocates within the left lament the narrowing of enforcement tools without fully engaging with Gorsuch's historical originalism argument.

Right-Leaning Perspective

The National Rifle Association and cannabis legalization groups like NORML supported Hemani's case. Groups like the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and the Cato Institute filed briefs supporting Hemani. These gun rights advocates framed the case as a necessary check on categorical government power to strip constitutional rights without individualized findings of danger. Some gun rights advocates expressed annoyance that the Trump administration defended the law in court, despite the administration's stated support for the Second Amendment. The underlying conservative position—articulated through Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion—emphasizes historical originalism and rejects categorical restrictions unsupported by founding-era precedent. Gorsuch noted that founding-era laws had much higher standards for 'habitual drunkards,' citing examples like George Washington taking three glasses of madeira wine with dinner and John Adams drinking a tankard of cider with breakfast, concluding that occasional marijuana users don't fit that historical category. Right-leaning coverage highlights the Second Amendment victory and marijuana legalization reality, but largely omits the detailed counterargument about public safety that gun control groups (including some on the left) advance. The conservative framing treats this as a clear win for constitutional limits on government power, downplaying the potential enforcement challenges prosecutors now face when distinguishing between casual and habitual use.

Deep Dive

This case is the latest to face Supreme Court scrutiny in the wake of the Court's landmark 2022 decision that recognized the right to carry a firearm outside the home. The case follows the 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which held that gun restrictions had to have historical examples to pass constitutional muster under the Second Amendment. Forty states have legalized marijuana use to some degree in recent years, and both the Trump administration rescheduled marijuana to a lower drug classification and the Justice Department reclassified certain marijuana products as less dangerous, creating tension with federal prosecution. The Supreme Court's unanimity reflects genuine agreement that applying a 1968 statute to casual marijuana users without evidence of actual danger or intoxication stretches the law beyond historical precedent. Justice Gorsuch's opinion noted that historical "habitual drunkard" laws required someone to be so regularly drunk they could not function, citing George Washington's three glasses of madeira wine with dinner and John Adams' daily tankard of cider, and concluding occasional marijuana use does not meet that standard. What separates the left and right is not the outcome here but rather what it means going forward: progressive civil libertarians see it as protecting individual rights against categorical government assumptions, while gun control advocates fear it signals future courts will require prosecutors to prove danger in every case, narrowing enforcement tools. CNN Supreme Court analyst Steve Vladeck noted that 'The court seems to have gone out of its way to avoid deciding any bigger questions about whether it's constitutional to criminalize gun possession by drug addicts; by individuals who are actually intoxicated; or in other circumstances in which the defendant is not obviously dangerous,' suggesting 'it's only a matter of time before those questions will come back to the Court'. The ruling explicitly preserves the possibility of future prosecutions based on proof of actual danger or addiction, leaving open how courts will handle harder cases.

OBJ SPEAKING

Create StoryTimelinesVoter ToolsRegional AnalysisPolicy GuideAll StoriesCommunity PicksUSWorldPoliticsBusinessHealthEntertainmentTechnologyAbout

Supreme Court rules against federal gun restriction for drug users

Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the federal government cannot automatically disarm people for casual marijuana use, finding prosecution for firearm possession inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

Jun 18, 2026
What's Going On

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of Ali Hemani in a unanimous decision, finding that his prosecution for having a firearm while an unlawful drug user is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Hemani was only an occasional user of marijuana when the FBI found a handgun at his Texas home in 2022. Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by six other justices, found that possession or use of an illegal drug such as marijuana could not be used to deprive Americans of their right to bear arms without other court process. The law forbids an unlawful drug user from possessing firearms with violators facing up to 15 years in prison, with the Justice Department estimating roughly 300 people are charged with the offense each year. The case created unusual political alliances with gun rights organizations and civil liberties advocates supporting Hemani, while the Trump administration's defense was supported by California, other liberal states, and Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control nonprofit.

Left says: The ACLU cheered the decision saying it makes it clear the government cannot make it a crime for people who use marijuana to own a gun. Gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety opposed the outcome, having supported the Trump administration's position.
Right says: The NRA supported Hemani's case along with marijuana legalization groups, viewing the ruling as a Second Amendment victory. Gun rights advocates criticized the Trump administration for defending the gun restriction despite its stated Second Amendment support.
✓ Common Ground
During oral arguments in March, it was clear both conservative and liberal justices had reservations with the breadth of the prosecution, suggesting broad judicial skepticism about applying the law to casual users without evidence of danger.
Numerous observers across the political spectrum noted that forty states have legalized marijuana use to some degree, and Justices Gorsuch, Alito, and Kagan all noted the shifts in marijuana policy at federal and state levels worked against the Justice Department's position.
The slimness of the decision was underscored by the fact that all nine justices joined an opinion on an issue, the Second Amendment, that has usually divided them along ideological lines, indicating genuine consensus on the specific factual scenario.
Objective Deep Dive

This case is the latest to face Supreme Court scrutiny in the wake of the Court's landmark 2022 decision that recognized the right to carry a firearm outside the home. The case follows the 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which held that gun restrictions had to have historical examples to pass constitutional muster under the Second Amendment. Forty states have legalized marijuana use to some degree in recent years, and both the Trump administration rescheduled marijuana to a lower drug classification and the Justice Department reclassified certain marijuana products as less dangerous, creating tension with federal prosecution.

The Supreme Court's unanimity reflects genuine agreement that applying a 1968 statute to casual marijuana users without evidence of actual danger or intoxication stretches the law beyond historical precedent. Justice Gorsuch's opinion noted that historical "habitual drunkard" laws required someone to be so regularly drunk they could not function, citing George Washington's three glasses of madeira wine with dinner and John Adams' daily tankard of cider, and concluding occasional marijuana use does not meet that standard. What separates the left and right is not the outcome here but rather what it means going forward: progressive civil libertarians see it as protecting individual rights against categorical government assumptions, while gun control advocates fear it signals future courts will require prosecutors to prove danger in every case, narrowing enforcement tools.

CNN Supreme Court analyst Steve Vladeck noted that 'The court seems to have gone out of its way to avoid deciding any bigger questions about whether it's constitutional to criminalize gun possession by drug addicts; by individuals who are actually intoxicated; or in other circumstances in which the defendant is not obviously dangerous,' suggesting 'it's only a matter of time before those questions will come back to the Court'. The ruling explicitly preserves the possibility of future prosecutions based on proof of actual danger or addiction, leaving open how courts will handle harder cases.

◈ Tone Comparison

ACLU language emphasizes broad populations ('nearly half of Americans') and protecting 'millions' from 'arbitrary and discriminatory penalties', using civil liberties framing. By contrast, Giffords Law Center used language of 'commonsense restrictions' and 'reasonable categorical prohibitions', emphasizing gun safety concerns. Left-leaning gun control groups adopt a more cautious, legalistic tone defending the law itself, while progressive civil liberties groups celebrate it as a win against government overreach.