Supreme Court hears challenge to ban on marijuana users owning guns

The Supreme Court heard the Justice Department's appeal Monday, March 2, 2026, in a case that could narrow or invalidate a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 that bars people who are "unlawful users of or addicted to any controlled substance" from possessing firearms and carries penalties of up to 15 years in prison. The dispute centers on whether that federal ban can be applied to people who use marijuana, a drug legal in some form in 40 states but still classified as a schedule I substance under federal law.

At argument, Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris urged the justices to view the statute as constitutional under the Court's 2022 Bruen framework, telling the court that the law "is analogous" to founding-era restrictions that disarmed "habitual drunkards." The government is defending a Fifth Circuit judgment that the appeals court reversed; the Fifth Circuit threw out an indictment against a defendant identified in some filings as Ali Danial Hemani after FBI agents found a legally purchased firearm in the home he shared with his parents and he told agents he used marijuana "every other day." The Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court after the Fifth Circuit concluded applying the law to marijuana users violated the Second Amendment.

Chief Justice John Roberts pressed the defense about the practical reach of its theory, expressing concern that accepting it could prevent Congress and the executive branch from treating other controlled substances differently. Roberts warned that under the defense argument, longstanding prohibitions on guns in courthouses "would have to be hashed out, case by case, in court, too," and criticized treating regulatory classifications as merely subject to judicial second-guessing by saying, "It just seems to me that takes a fairly cavalier approach to the necessary consideration of expertise and the judgments we leave to Congress and the executive branch."

The case has drawn an unusual cross-ideological coalition and a flurry of amici briefs. Conservative gun-rights organizations, including the NRA, have signaled opposition to the Justice Department's position in this matter, while liberal civil-liberties groups such as the ACLU argue the statute is vague and overbroad. Cecillia Wang, legal director at the ACLU, warned that the law could give prosecutors "a blank check" and left "millions of Americans" who use marijuana unclear about whether owning a firearm could expose them to criminal liability.

Government filings have at times painted a more severe portrait of the defendant, with briefs describing him as a drug dealer with alleged terrorist ties, though reporters noted Hemani was not charged with those offenses in the underlying indictment. The case also carries political resonance because the same federal provision has been invoked in other high-profile prosecutions, including a case used against Hunter Biden involving alleged drug addiction and firearm purchase.

Legal analysts say the Court's decision will test Bruen's historical-analogy approach when applied to modern drug policy and could have sweeping enforcement consequences across federal and state lines: marijuana remains broadly legalized at the state level while federal criminal law still prohibits possession. A ruling is expected by summer and could reshape how Congress and the executive branch regulate guns tied to medical, recreational, and regulatory classifications of controlled substances.