U.S. Supreme Court Rules Marijuana Users Cannot Be Banned from Gun Ownership
In a unanimous 9-0 decision on June 18, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in *United States v. Hemani* that federal law prohibiting illegal drug users from possessing firearms violates the Second Amendment. The case involved Ali Hemani, a Texas man charged after admitting to occasional marijuana use. Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch rejected historical comparisons to “habitual drunkard” laws, stating mere drug use without evidence of incapacitation does not justify disarmament. The ruling expands gun rights under the 2022 *Bruen* precedent.
Cross-source coverage
Wire timeline
SCOTUS Unanimously Rules Second Amendment Protects Gun Rights for Cannabis Users
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that federal laws banning gun possession by marijuana users violate the Second Amendment, rejecting the idea of a 'drug exception' to the Bill of Rights. The case involved Ali Hemani, a Texas man who owned a pistol and used cannabis several times a week. A federal judge and the 5th Circuit had dismissed the charge, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision. The ruling drew an unusual coalition: the NRA, ACLU, NORML, and libertarian groups supported Hemani, while 18 blue states that legalized marijuana joined the Trump administration in arguing for the prosecution. The Court found the federal statute inconsistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Reason.comSupreme Court Unanimously Rules Second Amendment Protects Gun Rights for Marijuana Users
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Second Amendment overrides federal anti-drug laws, striking down a statute that made it a felony for unlawful drug users to possess firearms. The case involved Ali Hemani, a Texas man who used marijuana a few times a week and owned a pistol. The Court found the law inconsistent with historical firearm regulation traditions. The Trump administration, despite professed support for gun rights, argued against Hemani. A rare coalition formed: the NRA, ACLU, NORML, and libertarian groups supported Hemani's gun rights, while 18 blue states with legalized marijuana joined the prosecution side. The ruling eliminates the so-called 'drug exception' to the Second Amendment.
Reason.comClarence Thomas Explains Why the Commerce Clause Cannot Justify Federal Bans on Gun Possession
The article reports on the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in United States v. Hemani (2026), which upheld Second Amendment rights for cannabis users, preventing prosecution under 18 USC 922(g)(3). Justice Clarence Thomas concurred but argued that the law exceeds Congress's Commerce Clause powers. He contends that the provision, which criminalizes gun possession 'in or affecting commerce,' relies on an overly broad interpretation—merely proving a gun crossed state lines at some point does not justify federal regulation. Thomas extends this critique to other categorical bans under Section 922(g), including those for felons and individuals with involuntary psychiatric treatment. He cites original meaning and precedent, referencing his dissent in Gonzales v. Raich, to argue Congress cannot regulate purely intrastate possession based on past interstate movement of the item. The ruling blocks prosecution of a Texas cannabis user, Ali Hemani.
Reason.comSupreme Court Invalidates Federal Gun Ban for Drug Users Under Second Amendment
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Hemani that a federal law prohibiting illegal drug users from owning firearms, Section 922(g)(3), is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. In a unanimous decision, the Court found that the government failed to provide a sufficient historical analogue under the 'history-and-tradition' test established in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The case originated from a 2022 search of Ali Hemani's home on terrorism suspicions, during which he admitted to regular marijuana use and was subsequently charged with gun possession while being an unlawful drug user. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for seven justices, rejected the government's analogy to founding-era laws disarming 'habitual drunkards,' calling it deficient. This marks the first time the Court has used the Bruen test to invalidate a federal law, though it also signals limits on the test's scope following the 2024 Rahimi decision. The ruling underscores ongoing tensions in Second Amendment jurisprudence.
The New RepublicSupreme Court Rules Federal Gun Ban for Drug Users Violates Second Amendment
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Hemani that a federal law making it a crime for illegal drug users to own firearms is inconsistent with the Second Amendment under the history-and-tradition test established in Bruen (2022). Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for a 7-2 majority, found that prosecutors failed to provide a sufficient historical analogue—comparing drug users to 'habitual drunkards' was deemed deficient. The case involved Ali Hemani, a Texas man who admitted to regular marijuana use during a search for suspected terrorism ties, and was charged under Section 922(g)(3). This is the first time the Supreme Court has used the Bruen test to invalidate a federal law, though the ruling also signals the court has curtailed the test's earlier ambitions as seen in the 2024 Rahimi decision. The opinion criticized the law's blanket prohibition, noting it applies regardless of the substance, amount, or whether the user poses any danger.
The New RepublicSupreme Court Narrows Federal Ban on Gun Ownership for Drug Users
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Hemani that a federal law (Section 922(g)(3)) criminalizing gun ownership by illegal drug users is inconsistent with the Second Amendment under the history-and-tradition test established in Bruen (2022). The 7-1 decision, authored by Justice Gorsuch, found that the government failed to provide a sufficient historical analogue, rejecting the analogy to founding-era laws disarming 'habitual drunkards.' The case originated from a 2022 search of Texas man Ali Hemani's home, where he admitted to regular marijuana use and surrendered a firearm. The ruling marks the first time the Supreme Court has used the Bruen test to invalidate a federal law, though it also reflects the court's narrowing of the test's scope since the Rahimi decision. The decision underscores ongoing judicial challenges in reconciling modern gun restrictions with historical traditions.
The New RepublicSupreme Court rules habitual drug users cannot be denied gun rights
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in US v. Hemani that habitual users of illegal drugs cannot be deprived of their Second Amendment right to bear arms, striking down a key provision of USC 922(g)(3). The case originated from the FBI's investigation of Ali Hemani, a Texas man of Pakistani descent, who was charged with possessing a gun while being an unlawful drug user after he voluntarily disclosed his marijuana use. The Court voted 9-0 to limit the law, with Justice Gorsuch writing the majority opinion that historical analogs, such as laws against 'habitual drunkards,' only applied to those needing institutionalization, not average users. Justice Jackson's concurrence argued for a simpler balancing test. The author frames the ruling as both progressive, for decriminalizing harmless drug users, and dangerous, for potentially increasing gun violence.
Article | The NationSupreme Court Rules Habitual Drug Users Cannot Be Denied Gun Rights
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in US v. Hemani that habitual users of illegal drugs cannot be deprived of their Second Amendment right to possess firearms, significantly limiting a federal statute (USC 922(g)(3)) that previously prohibited such possession. The case involved Ali Hemani, a Texas man whose home was searched by the FBI on suspicion of terrorism; no evidence was found, but he was later charged for possessing a gun while being an unlawful user of marijuana. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, arguing that historical analogues—laws against 'habitual drunkards'—only applied to those needing institutionalization, not average users. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred, proposing a simpler balancing test. The ruling is described as both progressive (reducing incarceration of drug users) and dangerous (increasing gun violence risks). The decision does not distinguish between different controlled substances.
Article | The NationSupreme Court Rules Drug Users Cannot Be Deprived of Gun Rights in US v. Hemani
The US Supreme Court ruled unanimously in US v. Hemani to limit a federal law that prohibited habitual drug users from possessing firearms. The case involved Ali Hemani, a Texas man investigated by the FBI for suspected terrorism who was later charged under 18 USC 922(g)(3) for possessing a gun while being an unlawful drug user. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, rejecting the government's analogy to historical laws disarming 'habitual drunkards,' arguing no historical precedent exists for disarming average alcoholics or drug users. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred, favoring a balancing test weighing Second Amendment burdens against public safety interests. The Nation's Elie Mystal analyzes the ruling as both progressive for decriminalizing harmless drug users and dangerous for expanding gun access, noting the decision applies to all controlled substances, not just marijuana.
Article | The NationSupreme Court Unanimously Rules No Drug Exception to Second Amendment
On June 19, 2026, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in United States v. Hemani that the government cannot strip people of their Second Amendment rights or prosecute them for illegal gun possession solely because they are marijuana users. The Court held that 18 USC 922(g)(3), which makes it a felony for unlawful drug users to possess firearms, is not consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation under the Bruen test. The case involved Texas man Ali Hemani, who was charged after owning a pistol and admitting to weekly marijuana use. The Trump administration had argued for disarming cannabis consumers by analogizing to historical treatment of habitual drunkards, but the justices found this argument weak. The decision marks a significant departure from the Court's history of deferring to drug war policies and emphasizes there is no drug exception to the Bill of Rights.
Reason.comSupreme Court Rules No Drug Exception to Second Amendment in United States v. Hemani
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in United States v. Hemani that the government cannot strip Second Amendment rights or prosecute individuals for illegal gun possession solely because they are marijuana users. The Court found that federal law 18 USC 922(g)(3), which makes it a felony for unlawful drug users to possess firearms, is not consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation as established in NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022). The case involved Ali Hemani, a Texas man charged based on his marijuana use and gun ownership. The Trump administration's argument equating cannabis users to 'habitual drunkards' was rejected as an inapt analogy. The decision marks a clear rejection of any 'drug exception' to the Second Amendment, despite the Court's historical deference to drug war policies.
Reason.comSupreme Court Unanimously Rules No Drug Exception to Second Amendment in Marijuana Gun Case
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in United States v. Hemani that the government cannot strip Second Amendment rights from or prosecute marijuana users for illegal gun possession solely based on cannabis use. The decision, applying the Bruen test, found that 18 USC 922(g)(3) is not consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The case involved Ali Hemani, a Texas man charged with gun possession after admitting to occasional marijuana use. The Court rejected the Trump administration's argument that cannabis users are analogous to historical 'habitual drunkards.' The ruling affirms that there is no drug exception to the Second Amendment, marking a significant shift from the Court's past deference to drug war policies.
Reason.comSupreme Court Rules Government Cannot Bar Marijuana Users From Owning Guns
In a unanimous 9-0 decision in United States v. Hemani, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment prevents the federal government from banning gun ownership by marijuana users. The ruling applies and extends the Court's 2022 Bruen decision, which established a 'history and tradition' test for reviewing gun regulations. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion, joined by seven justices. The Court rejected the government's analogy to historical 'habitual drunkard' laws, finding them fundamentally different from modern prohibitions on marijuana users. The ruling represents a significant victory for Second Amendment advocates and opponents of the War on Drugs.
Reason.comSupreme Court Unanimously Rules Government Cannot Bar Marijuana Users From Owning Guns
In a landmark 9-0 decision in United States v. Hemani, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment prevents the federal government from banning gun ownership by marijuana users. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, applying the 'history and tradition' test from the 2022 Bruen case. The government argued that historical 'habitual drunkard' laws provided a relevant analogy, but the Court rejected this, noting those laws targeted different conduct, purposes, and people. The ruling highlights that mere regular use of intoxicants, including marijuana, is not sufficient to strip Second Amendment rights. The decision featured three concurring opinions, including a rare joint concurrence by Justices Alito and Kagan. The outcome is a significant extension of Second Amendment protections and a blow to federal drug war policies.
Reason.comSupreme Court Unanimously Rules Government Cannot Bar Marijuana Users From Owning Guns
In a landmark 9-0 decision in United States v. Hemani, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment prevents the federal government from banning gun ownership by marijuana users. The ruling, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, extends the Court's 2022 Bruen decision, which established a 'history and tradition' test for reviewing gun regulations. The government argued that historical 'habitual drunkard' laws provided a relevant analogy, but the Court rejected this, noting that those laws targeted different people for different purposes and operated differently. The decision features three concurring opinions, including a rare joint concurrence by Justices Alito and Kagan. The ruling is a significant victory for both Second Amendment advocates and critics of the War on Drugs.
Reason.comU.S. Supreme Court Rules Federal Ban on Gun Possession by Marijuana Users Violates Second Amendment
In a landmark decision on June 18, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Hemani that prosecuting a nonviolent marijuana user for possessing a firearm violates the Second Amendment. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. The Court rejected the government's argument that marijuana users are categorically dangerous, comparing such blanket disqualification to an unconstitutional broad power to designate groups as dangerous. The Court also dismissed historical analogies to 'habitual drunkard' laws as fundamentally different. All nine justices agreed with the outcome, though Justices Alito and Kagan concurred on different grounds. The decision represents a sweeping victory for Second Amendment rights, striking down federal enforcement of the unlawful user provision against marijuana users without individualized proof of danger.
Reason.comSupreme Court Rules Federal Prosecution of Marijuana-Using Gun Owner Violates Second Amendment
In a landmark ruling on United States v. Hemani, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that the federal government's prosecution of a nonviolent marijuana user for possessing a firearm violated the Second Amendment. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined by seven justices, rejecting the government's argument that regular marijuana users are categorically dangerous. The Court dismissed historical analogies to 'habitual drunkard' laws, finding them fundamentally different in scope and purpose. Justice Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan concurred separately. The decision represents a significant victory for Second Amendment advocates, as the Court refused to allow broad government power to designate groups as dangerous to justify gun possession bans.
Reason.comSupreme Court Rules Federal Prosecution of Marijuana-Using Gun Owner Violates Second Amendment
In a landmark 9-0 decision in United States v. Hemani, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal prosecution of a nonviolent marijuana user for possessing a firearm violates the Second Amendment. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. The Court rejected the government's argument that regular marijuana users are categorically dangerous, stating that allowing such broad power would risk swallowing the Second Amendment. The Court also dismissed historical comparisons to laws regulating 'habitual drunkards,' finding them fundamentally different. Justices Alito and Kagan concurred on different grounds. The decision represents a significant expansion of gun rights, striking down a key federal restriction on firearm possession by drug users.
Reason.comSupreme Court curtails gun ban for drug users
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision on June 18, 2026, limited a federal law that prohibits illegal drug users from possessing firearms. The case involved Ali Danial Hemani, who was charged after investigators found a gun in his home and he admitted to using marijuana every other day. In an opinion written by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, the Court found that merely possessing or using an illegal drug like marijuana, or even using a spouse's Ambien, is not sufficient to deprive Americans of their Second Amendment right to bear arms without additional legal process. The ruling distinguishes modern law from colonial-era 'habitual drunkard' laws, which required evidence of incapacitation. The Court noted that the government can still pursue cases to disarm addicts or ban gun possession by actively intoxicated individuals, and Congress retains the power to target users of specific drugs if they pose a special risk of misusing firearms.
Roll CallSupreme Court curtails gun ban for drug users
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled on June 18, 2026, that a federal law prohibiting illegal drug users from possessing firearms violates the Second Amendment in the case of Ali Danial Hemani. Hemani was charged after investigators found a gun in his home and he admitted to using marijuana every other day. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, held that mere drug use or possession, without evidence of incapacitation or danger, cannot justify disarmament. The decision contrasts modern law with colonial-era 'habitual drunkard' statutes, which required a showing of regular incapacitation. The ruling continues a trend of expanding gun rights since the 2022 Bruen decision. The court noted Congress could still regulate firearms for those actively intoxicated or posing special risks. Justice Thomas argued the law exceeded congressional authority, while Justices Alito and Kagan disagreed with the reasoning. The case highlights tensions between federal drug laws and state marijuana legalization.
Roll Call