The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday limited the federal government’s ability to prosecute cannabis consumers under a decades-old law that bars firearm possession by unlawful users of controlled substances.

In a unanimous decision in United States v. Hemani, the Court affirmed the dismissal of a federal charge against Ali Hemani, a Texas resident who told law enforcement he used marijuana “about every other day.”

The ruling does not fully resolve the conflict between cannabis use and firearm ownership under federal law, but it does substantially redefine and narrow how law enforcement and the government may apply 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3), the Gun Control Act provision that makes it a crime for anyone who is an “unlawful user of” or “addicted to” a controlled substance to possess a firearm.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the Court, said the government failed to show that prosecuting Hemani based only on regular marijuana use was consistent with the Second Amendment.

The case stemmed from a 2022 search of a Dallas-area home Hemani shared with his parents. According to the Court’s opinion, Hemani surrendered a firearm kept in the home, pointed agents to marijuana on the property, and later told law enforcement that he used marijuana about every other day.

More than six months after the search, prosecutors charged Hemani with one count of possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance.

The charge did not involve terrorism, drug trafficking, cocaine possession, use of the firearm while intoxicated, or any allegation that Hemani threatened another person. That narrow scope became central to the Court’s decision.

The government argued that the firearm restriction was supported by historic laws that allowed authorities to restrict the rights of “habitual drunkards.”

The Court rejected that comparison, finding that those laws were different in who they targeted, why they operated, and how they were enforced.

The opinion emphasized that regular use of an intoxicant was not the same as being incapacitated, addicted, dangerous, or unable to manage one’s affairs.

In writing the opinion, Gorsuch also questioned whether §922(g)(3), as applied broadly to controlled substance users, actually serves the government’s stated goal of disarming people who are “categorically violent and unusually dangerous.”

“There are reasons to doubt that the government has established §922(g)(3) even serves the purpose the government claims, of disarming categorically violent and unusually dangerous persons,” Gorsuch wrote.

He pointed to the statute’s reliance on the Controlled Substances Act, which was adopted to protect “the health and general welfare of the American people,” noting that substances may be scheduled for reasons that have “little or nothing to do with their potential to induce violence.”

   

Additionally, Gorsuch said the government’s own actions undercut its position, “Additionally, the government’s own regulatory actions undercut its position: the Department of Justice has directed federal prosecutors to curtail enforcement efforts against marijuana users, most States have legalized marijuana use to some degree, and the government recently moved some marijuana products from Schedule I to Schedule III,” he wrote.

“Affording the government ‘broad power to designate any group as dangerous and thereby disqualify its members from having a gun’ would risk allowing it to ‘quickly swallow’ the Second Amendment,” Gorsuch said, quoting then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s dissent in Kanter v. Barr.

For cannabis consumers, patients, and businesses operating in state-regulated markets, the ruling is beyond significant.

It addresses one of the most visible areas where federal prohibition continues to collide with state cannabis laws and one of the most frequently discussed points of concern by potential medical cannabis patients.

Cannabis remains controlled under federal law, even as most states now allow medical or adult-use cannabis in some form. That conflict has long created uncertainty for patients and consumers who may comply with state cannabis laws but remain exposed to federal restrictions tied to firearms, employment, housing, immigration, benefits, and other areas of federal law.

The ruling does not mean every cannabis consumer may possess a firearm without legal risk.

Gorsuch wrote that the Court’s decision is purposefully narrow and does not address bans on firearm possession by people who are addicted to drugs or presently intoxicated.

Instead, the Court rejected the government’s broadest position: that regular marijuana use alone is enough to automatically strip a person of Second Amendment rights and support a felony prosecution.

The American Civil Liberties Union represented Hemani, and groups including NORML, the Drug Policy Alliance, the Cato Institute, and the National Rifle Association supported arguments against the government’s broad application of the law.

As the federal government moves forward with rescheduling, more and more stagnant laws regarding cannabis use and consumption will be tested and corrected.

But for today, the takeaway is important and clear: federal prosecutors may not rely on marijuana use alone to automatically disarm and prosecute.

Read the full Supreme Court opinion in United States v. Hemani.