U.S. Supreme Court Rules Federal Gun Ban Cannot Be Automatically Applied to Marijuana Users
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the federal government violated the Second Amendment when it prosecuted a Texas man for possessing a firearm solely because he admitted to regularly using marijuana.
In a decision released June 18, 2026, the Court affirmed a Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Ali Danial Hemani, holding that the government’s use of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3) against Hemani was unconstitutional as applied in this case. The federal statute bars anyone who is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, a controlled substance from possessing a firearm.
According to the opinion, Hemani is a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan who was born in Texas and lived most of his life in the Dallas area. Federal agents searched his family’s home in 2022 while investigating suspected terrorism-related activity. During the search, Hemani cooperated with authorities, surrendered a gun kept in the home, pointed agents to marijuana on the property, and later told investigators he used marijuana about every other day.
More than six months later, prosecutors charged Hemani not with terrorism, drug trafficking, or a crime involving misuse of the firearm, but with possessing a gun while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance. The government argued that his marijuana use alone was enough to trigger the federal firearms ban.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the Court, said the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear firearms for self-defense, while also recognizing that the right has limits. The Court said the government failed to show that its broad application of the law fit within the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The government had compared the modern law to historical “habitual drunkard” laws, arguing that past governments restricted the liberties of people who regularly used intoxicants. The Court rejected that comparison, finding that those older laws generally applied to people whose drinking left them incapacitated, unable to manage their own affairs, or in need of legal process before their liberty was restricted.
By contrast, the Court said the federal law, as applied by prosecutors, automatically disarmed anyone who regularly used any controlled substance, regardless of the amount used, the effect of the drug, whether the person was dangerous, or whether the person had ever misused a firearm.
The ruling emphasized that the decision is narrow. The Court said it was not deciding whether Congress may prohibit firearm possession by addicts, people who are presently intoxicated, convicted felons, or people shown through individualized evidence to be dangerous because of drug use.
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion, saying he agreed with the Court’s Second Amendment ruling but also believed courts should revisit whether parts of §922(g) exceed Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause.
The judgment of the Fifth Circuit was affirmed.
