Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Case On Gun Rights Of People Who Use Marijuana And Other Illegal Drugs

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case on the constitutionality
of a federal law prohibiting people who use marijuana or other drugs from
buying or possessing firearms. The Trump administration has argued that the
policy “targets a category of persons who pose a clear danger of misusing
firearm” and should be upheld.

After several years of conflicting lower court rulings on related cases,
justices on Monday granted cert in *U.S. v. Hemani *to settle the question
of whether the ban—known as Section 922(g)(3)—is consistent with the Second
Amendment.

While the court on Monday also declined to take up a separate case on
cannabis consumers’ gun rights, there are still several others pending a
decision from the justices. But the choice to take up *Hemani *in
particular is likely welcome news to the Justice Department, which has
consistently defended the firearm prohibition and specifically requested
that SCOTUS review that case instead of alternatives.

That could be related to the fact that the defendant is not only a
marijuana consumer but also a user of cocaine who’s sold drugs in the past,
so it’s possible DOJ reasoned that he is a less sympathetic face for the
issue. Defendants in the other cases were merely found in possession of
both a firearm and marijuana.

In June, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, an appointee of President
Donald Trump, submitted a filing with the Supreme Court that said “Section
922(g)(3) complies with the Second Amendment,” and the statute “targets a
category of persons who pose a clear danger of misusing firearms: habitual
users of unlawful drugs.”

The law “bars their possession of firearms only temporarily and leaves it
within their power to lift the restriction at any time; anyone who stops
habitually using illegal drugs can resume possessing firearms,” Sauer said.

Notably, while the government mentions “habitual” users of illegal drugs 40
times in its filing, that word does not itself appear in 922(g)(3). The
language of the statute prohibits anyone “who is an unlawful user of or
addicted to any controlled substance” from purchasing or possessing
firearms or ammunition.

In a separate August filing for the case, the Justice Department also
emphasized that “the question presented is the subject of a multi-sided and
growing circuit conflict.” In seeking the court’s grant of cert, the
solicitor general also noted that the defendant is a joint American and
Pakistani citizen with alleged ties to Iranian entities hostile to the
U.S., putting him the FBI’s radar.

Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to take up *Hemani*, if justices
declare 922(g)(3) constitutional, such a ruling could could mean government
wins in the remaining cases. The high court on Monday denied a petition for
cert in *U.S. v. Cooper*, while leaving pending decisions on *U.S. v.
Daniels* and *U.S. v. Sam*. The justices were scheduled to discuss all of
the cases at a closed-door meeting last Friday.

The court also recently denied a petition for cert in another gun and
marijuana case, *U.S. v. Baxter, *but that wasn’t especially surprising as
both DOJ and the defendants advised against further pursing the matter
after a lower court reinstated his conviction for being an unlawful user of
a controlled substance in possession of a firearm.

A number of federal courts in recent years have cast doubt on the legality
of § 922(g)(3), finding generally that while the ban on gun ownership among
drug users may not be entirely unconstitutional, there’s scant historical
precedent for such a broad restriction of Second Amendment rights on an
entire a category of people.

Meanwhile, in recent interviews with Marijuana Moment, several Republican
senators shared their views on the federal ban on gun possession by people
who use marijuana—with one saying that if alcohol drinkers can lawfully buy
and use firearms, the same standard should apply to cannabis consumers.

Separately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit last month sided
with a federal district court that dismissed an indictment against Jared
Michael Harrison, who was charged in Oklahoma in 2022 after police
discovered cannabis and a handgun in his vehicle during a traffic stop.

The case has now been remanded to that lower court, which determined that
the current statute banning “unlawful” users of marijuana from possessing
firearms violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

The lower court largely based his initial decision on an interpretation of
a Supreme Court ruling in which the justices generally created a higher
standard for policies that seek to impose restrictions on gun rights.

The ruling states that any such restrictions must be consistent with the
historical context of the Second Amendment’s original 1791 ratification.

The historical analogues that the Justice Department relied on to make the
case that the ban is consistent included references to antiquated case law
preventing Catholics, loyalists, slaves and Indians from having guns.

The circuit court, for its part, said that “the government must show
non-intoxicated marijuana users pose a risk of future danger” to support
the current policy. “This inquiry, which may involve fact finding, is best
suited for the district court.”

Meanwhile, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District, judges
recently ruled in favor of medical cannabis patients who want to exercise
their Second Amendment rights to possess firearms.

As a recent report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) explained
the current legal landscape, a growing number of federal courts are now
“finding constitutional problems in the application of at least some parts”
of the firearms prohibition.

In a recent ruling, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit vacated a defendant’s conviction and remanded the case
back to a district court, noting that a retrial before a jury may be
necessary to determine whether cannabis in fact caused the defendant to be
dangerous or pose a credible threat to others.

The Third Circuit separately said in a published opinion that district
courts must make “individualized judgments” to determine whether 922(g)(3)
is constitutional as applied to particular defendants.


*— Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug
policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon
supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps,
charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.*


*Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on
Patreon to get access. —*

Earlier this year, a federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that the ban was
unconstitutional as applied to two defendants, writing that the government
failed to establish that the “sweeping” prohibition against gun ownership
by marijuana users was grounded in historical precedent.

A federal judge in El Paso separately ruled late last year that the
government’s ongoing ban on gun ownership by habitual marijuana users is
unconstitutional in the case of a defendant who earlier pleaded guilty to
the criminal charge. The court allowed the man to withdraw the plea and
ordered that the indictment against him be dismissed.

DOJ has claimed in multiple federal cases over the past several years that the
statute banning cannabis consumers from owning or possessing guns is
constitutional because it’s consistent with the nation’s history of
disarming “dangerous” individuals.

In 2023, for example, the Justice Department told the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit that historical precedent “comfortably” supports the
restriction. Cannabis consumers with guns pose a unique danger to society,
the Biden administration claimed, in part because they’re “unlikely” to
store their weapon properly.

Meanwhile, some states have passed their own laws either further
restricting or attempting to preserve gun rights as they relate to
marijuana.

Recently a Pennsylvania lawmaker introduced a bill meant to remove state
barriers to medical marijuana patients carrying firearms.

Colorado activists also attempted to qualify an initiative for November’s
ballot that would have protected the Second Amendment rights of marijuana
consumers in that state, but the campaign’s signature-gathering drive
ultimately fell short.

As 2024 drew to a close, the ATF issued a warning to Kentucky residents that,
if they choose to participate in the state’s medical marijuana program
that’s set to launch imminently, they will be prohibited from buying or
possessing firearms under federal law.

The official said that while people who already own firearms aren’t
“expected to” turn them over if they become state-legal cannabis patients,
those who “wish to follow federal law and not be in violation of it” must
“make the decision to divest themselves of those firearms.”

Since then, bipartisan state lawmakers have introduced legislation that
would urge Kentucky’s representatives in Congress to amend federal law to
clarify that users of medical marijuana may legally possess firearms,
though no action has since been taken on that bill.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) said in January that he supported the
legislature’s effort to urge the state’s congressional delegation to call
for federal reforms to protect the Second Amendment rights of medical
marijuana patients, but the governor added that he’d like to see even more
sweeping change on the federal level.

The post Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Case On Gun Rights Of People Who Use
Marijuana And Other Illegal Drugs appeared first on Marijuana Moment.