Supreme Court strikes down federal law banning gun ownership for marijuana users
Decision exposes deeper clash over constitutional method, federal power, and who counts as ‘dangerous’
The brief
The Supreme Court unanimously held in United States v. Ali Danial Hemani that the federal ban on firearm possession by “unlawful users of or addicts to any controlled substance” cannot be constitutionally applied to a person who regularly uses marijuana but is not shown to be presently intoxicated or otherwise dangerous. The ruling rests on the Court’s Bruen-era demand for historical analogues: the government failed to show a sufficiently similar tradition disarming non-dangerous marijuana users. Reactions split not simply over gun policy, but over deeper questions about constitutional method, federal authority versus public-safety discretion, and the role of historical precedent in modern regulation.
On June 18, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in United States v. Ali Danial Hemani that narrows how 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) — the federal statute barring "unlawful users of or addicts to any controlled substance" from possessing firearms — can be applied. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the Court, concluded that applying the statute to a person who regularly uses marijuana but is not shown to be currently intoxicated or dangerous is inconsistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation as required by the Court’s 2022 Bruen decision.
At first glance the case looks narrow: federal agents seized a Glock and charged Hemani after finding marijuana and cocaine at his home; Hemani acknowledged regular marijuana use and argued the statute was overbroad under the Second Amendment. But the controversy radiates outward into three deeper conflicts that shape how the public and political actors interpret the holding.
First, constitutional methodology. Since Bruen, courts require modern gun restrictions to align with historical analogues from the founding era. The Hemani majority accepted that some categories—felons, the mentally ill, the presently intoxicated—fit longstanding disarming traditions. It found, however, that broad categories covering persons who habitually use marijuana do not have a clear progenitor in historical practice unless dangerousness or present impairment is shown. That reasoning elevates legal historians’ role in contemporary regulation and shifts many disputes from policy balancing to historical proof — a change that appeals to originalist legal theory and alarms advocates who prefer means-ends balancing.
Second, federalism and statutory mismatch. Marijuana remains a Schedule I drug under federal law while many states allow its recreational or medical use. The Court’s decision does not legalize marijuana or immunize all users from federal law; rather, it limits the federal government’s ability to enforce a categorical firearm ban against non-intoxicated users. The ruling intensifies tension between state legalization trends and lingering federal prohibition: states may legalize use, but federal firearms law can still reach users in narrowly tailored ways that show present dangerousness or addiction.
Third, risk assessment and public safety. Opponents of the ruling worry it creates a loophole allowing gun access by persons who, while not currently intoxicated, may engage in risky behavior when they are. Supporters see the decision as a guardrail against indefinite, lifetime disarmament based on off-duty or private lawful conduct in jurisdictions that permit marijuana. Both positions are sincere: one prioritizes preventing foreseeable harm; the other insists that constitutional rights cannot be abridged on the basis of unproven or historical analogies lacking clear continuity.
The ruling also leaves multiple policy instruments intact. Congress can still criminalize firearms possession by people who are presently intoxicated, who are proven addicts, or where individualized proof of dangerousness exists. The Court’s approach therefore channels lawmakers toward more targeted legislation or to produce stronger historical analogues — a prescription that is likely to fuel further legislative and judicial skirmishes.
Practically, the decision is likely to produce immediate effects in federal prosecutions: cases like Hemani’s may face dismissal or narrowing absent evidence of present impairment or addiction. Politically, it hands advocates on both sides talking points: gun-rights proponents highlight a Second Amendment protection, while public-safety advocates emphasize the need for Congress to craft targeted, evidence-based rules. Above all, the Hemani decision highlights a meta-conflict about who should set the terms of legal truth — historians and text-focused judges, elected legislatures crafting forward-looking public-safety schemes, or technocratic agencies balancing risks — and that upstream dispute will shape how future gun and drug disputes are litigated and legislated.
Key facts
6 pointsCheck the reporting behind each point.
On June 18, 2026 the Supreme Court in United States v. Ali Danial Hemani unanimously held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) cannot constitutionally be applied to a person who regularly uses marijuana but is not shown to be presently intoxicated or dangerous.
Supreme Court Opinion (Cornell LII)4 more sources
AP NewsSupreme Court sides with a Texas man who says it’s not a crime for marijuana users to have gunsABC NewsSupreme Court allows some marijuana users to own guns, limiting federal gun banNPRSupreme Court sides with marijuana user who was barred from owning gunsWUSF (NPR affiliate)Supreme Court sides with a marijuana user who was barred from owning gunsThe defendant, Ali Danial Hemani, admitted to using marijuana several times a week and owned a Glock 9mm that federal agents seized; he was charged under § 922(g)(3), which can carry penalties up to 15 years and a lifetime firearms ban.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the Court’s opinion, emphasizing that historical analogies relied on by the government — such as laws disarming habitual drunkards — are not sufficiently similar to justify a blanket ban on marijuana users who are neither shown to be addicted nor presently intoxicated.
Sources for this story 11 links
Links show the reporting used for this brief. Multiple links may report the same underlying account; they do not automatically mean independent confirmation.
Compare perspectives
See what each framing puts first, leaves out, and worries about.
What matters most in each reading?
Prioritize public safety and legislative responsibility
Progressive-leaning framing
- Protecting public safety and preventing loopholes
- Congress’s responsibility to regulate based on risk
- Concerns about undermining drug-enforcement and safety aims
Protect rights through doctrinal fidelity
Conservative-leaning framing
- Protecting Second Amendment rights
- Limiting federal overreach
- Applying Bruen's historical test faithfully
Illustrative editorial analysis, not a survey of news coverage. These readings do not represent everyone or imply that both arguments have equal evidence.
Practice a conversation about this story
More from Legal.