The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a federal law banning gun ownership for "unlawful users" of controlled substances is unconstitutional as applied to a regular marijuana user. The 9-0 decision in United States v. Hemani found the 1968 law too broad, rejecting the government's comparison to historical "habitual drunkard" laws. The court said prosecutors must show a user is dangerous, not just that they use drugs.
Supreme Court gun rights
- ▪The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously (9-0) on June 18, 2026, that a federal law banning gun ownership for marijuana users is unconstitutional as applied in this case
- ▪Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, which described the decision as a "narrow" ruling based on the specifics of Hemani's case
- ▪Several justices, including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, wrote separate concurring opinions agreeing with the judgment but for different reasons
Marijuana user firearm ownership
- ▪Hunter Biden was convicted in 2024 under the same law for purchasing a gun while having a drug addiction, and was later pardoned by his father
- ▪Advocacy groups stated the ruling protects the rights of millions of Americans who use marijuana and also own firearms
- ▪The case, United States v. Hemani, concerned a Texas man, Ali Hemani, who was prosecuted for owning a gun while being a regular marijuana user
- ▪The ruling limits a provision of the 1968 Gun Control Act making it a felony for an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" to possess a firearm
- ▪The government did not allege that Ali Hemani was a drug addict or that his marijuana use made him a danger to himself or others
Bruen framework confusion
- ▪In a concurring opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, called for overruling the "unworkable" Bruen decision
- ▪The court's decision was based on its 2022 Bruen ruling, which requires gun laws to be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
Historical intoxication laws
- ▪Justice Gorsuch wrote that historical "habitual drunkard" laws targeted people incapacitated by alcohol, a much narrower standard than the modern federal law
- ▪The Justice Department argued the gun ban was analogous to historical laws restricting "habitual drunkards," an argument the court rejected
Prescription drug user implications
- ▪The majority opinion noted the law's broadness could also apply to users of common prescription drugs like a spouse's Ambien or a friend's Adderall
- ▪The government charges more than 300 people each year under the provision for being an unlawful user or addict in possession of a gun
- ▪The ruling leaves open the possibility for the government to disarm individuals proven to be drug addicts or whose drug use makes them dangerous
Story comments
Loading comments…