Supreme Court Denies One Case On Gun Rights For Marijuana Consumers, But Justices Will Discuss Several Others This Week

The U.S. Supreme Court has narrowed its list of pending cases concerning
the federal ban on gun ownership by people who use marijuana, with justices
declining to take up one of about a half dozen—with the others now set to
be discussed by the justices at a closed-door meeting on Friday.

On Tuesday, the court denied a petition for cert in *U.S. v. Baxter*, which
involves a challenge to the federal statute known as Section 922(g)(3).
That isn’t especially surprising, however, as both the Justice Department
and Keshon Daveon Baxter, the man being prosecuted in the case, 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. That came after the case was remanded back from
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

But advocates are closely monitoring a series of other related cases
contesting the constitutionality of the gun ban for cannabis consumers,
which they say violates the Second Amendment.

DOJ has specifically asked justices to take up one case in particular on
the issue while holding on to others for later action. That case, *U.S. v.
Hemani,* involves a person convicted of possessing a firearm while using
cannabis and cocaine and participating in illicit drug sales. It’s viewed
as an easier dispute that would favor the government given the involvement
of drugs beyond marijuana.

The multiple pending cases were scheduled to be discussed in a closed-door
meeting last week. It’s unclear if that happened, but the dockets on the
remaining cases were updated on Tuesday to indicate that the justices are
now planning to consider them this Friday.

Besides Hemani, the other pending cases on gun rights for marijuana
consumers set to be discussed at this week’s private conference are *U.S.
v. Cooper*, *U.S. v. Daniels* and *U.S. v. Sam*.

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 Denies One Case On Gun Rights For Marijuana
Consumers, But Justices Will Discuss Several Others This Week appeared
first on Marijuana Moment.