Supreme Court Rules 9-0 Marijuana Users Can't Automatically Be Banned From Owning Guns

Every single justice agreed. That doesn't happen often.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that the federal government overstepped when it charged a Texas man with illegal gun possession simply because he used marijuana. The decision limits the reach of a 1968 federal law that made it a crime for anyone who "is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" to possess a firearm — and the implications stretch well beyond one man's case.

The ruling protects what could be millions of Americans who both own guns and use marijuana, either recreationally or medically.

What Actually Happened

Ali Hemani, an American-Pakistani dual citizen living in Denton County, Texas, had his home raided by the FBI in 2023. Agents found a Glock 9mm, marijuana, and cocaine. Hemani said he used marijuana roughly every other day. Authorities didn't accuse him of being intoxicated at the time of the search. The only charge filed against him was the single gun possession count under the 1968 Gun Control Act.

Worth noting — the Justice Department mentioned in court papers that Hemani had drawn FBI attention due to travel to Iran and his brother attending an Iranian university. But none of that resulted in charges. The only thing prosecutors had was the marijuana-plus-gun combination.

Hemani argued the charge violated his Second Amendment rights. The lower court agreed and tossed the case. The Supreme Court upheld that dismissal Thursday.

Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion. His core point was simple — the government never alleged Hemani was an addict, never showed his marijuana use made him dangerous to himself or others, and never demonstrated that prosecuting him fit within America's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Without any of that, the case fell apart.

"The millions of Americans who now regularly use marijuana are categorically and unusually dangerous," Gorsuch wrote, quoting the government's own position back at it — and essentially calling it absurd.

The Trump Administration's Awkward Position

Here's where it gets complicated. The Trump administration defended the 1968 law — but partway through the case softened its stance on marijuana users specifically, suggesting maybe a carve-out could exist for FDA-approved marijuana products or people with state medical marijuana licenses. Gorsuch called this shift "awkward" and said it undercut the government's own argument.

Trump also signed an executive order concerning marijuana, and the Justice Department in April reclassified the drug as less dangerous than its previous Schedule I classification alongside heroin and ecstasy. So the administration was simultaneously loosening marijuana policy while defending a law that treated marijuana users as too dangerous to own firearms. The court noticed.

The Hunter Biden Connection

This same 1968 law became national news in 2024 when federal prosecutors used it to convict Hunter Biden, who was accused of lying about his drug use when he purchased a handgun in 2018. His father pardoned him later that year. Thursday's ruling doesn't undo that conviction — the case is resolved — but it raises serious questions about whether a prosecution like Hunter Biden's would survive constitutional scrutiny today under this new framework.

What the Ruling Does and Doesn't Do

The court was careful to leave some things unanswered. It didn't draw a bright line saying all drug users can own guns. It didn't specify which drugs, if any, might still justify a firearm ban. What it said is that the government can't make blanket assumptions about dangerousness — it has to actually show, case by case, that a specific person's drug use makes them a genuine threat.

The Justice Department had argued the court should allow charges against "habitual users" of unlawful drugs, drawing a comparison to 19th century laws allowing authorities to temporarily disarm "habitual drunkards." Gorsuch wasn't buying it. Those old laws targeted different people, for different reasons, in different ways — and comparing them to a sweeping modern federal firearms ban didn't hold up.

What This Means Going Forward

With nearly half of Americans reporting marijuana use at some point in their lives and 24 states having legalized recreational use, the practical reach of this decision is enormous. People in legal marijuana states who also own firearms have been technically violating federal law for years — a legal tension this ruling begins to resolve, even if it doesn't fully eliminate it.

One more significant Second Amendment case is still pending at the court this term — a challenge to a Hawaii law restricting handgun possession on private property open to the public. That decision is expected before the end of June.

Curious for more stories that keep you informed and entertained? From the latest headlines to everyday insights, YourLifeBuzz has more to explore. Dive into what’s next.