SCOTUS Says You Can't Lose Gun Rights for Smoking Pot, But You Could Still Lose a Government License to Work

The article analyzes the Supreme Court's unanimous June 2026 ruling in United States v. Hemani, which held that the government cannot strip a person's Second Amendment right to possess a firearm solely because they use marijuana, as the government failed to show a historical tradition of such regulation. However, the piece highlights a constitutional double standard: while gun rights receive strong judicial protection, the right to earn a living is subject to a much weaker 'rational basis' test. States routinely deny occupational licenses—for cosmetology, dietetics, massage therapy, etc.—based on past drug convictions or 'good moral character' requirements, even when the offense has no bearing on job fitness. The article traces this asymmetry to the famous Footnote 4 in United States v. Carolene Products (1938), which created a hierarchy where enumerated constitutional rights are presumed protected while unenumerated rights like economic liberty are presumed constitutional unless challengers meet an almost impossible burden. The author argues this misunderstands the Framers' intent, as James Madison feared a Bill of Rights might imply unlisted rights are unprotected.