9–0 Shock: Marijuana Users Aren’t Disarmed

Interior of a historic courtroom with wooden furniture and an American flag

The Supreme Court just told Washington it cannot strip Second Amendment rights from peaceful marijuana users just because they admit they get high.

Story Snapshot

The Supreme Court ruled 9–0 that the federal government cannot prosecute a man for owning a gun just because he regularly used marijuana.
Justice Neil Gorsuch said the government failed to show any real historical tradition of disarming ordinary cannabis users, even under the Court’s own Bruen test.^[8]
The decision punches a major hole in the 1968 Gun Control Act’s ban on “unlawful users” of controlled substances, at least for people who are sober and non-violent.^[2]^[3]
The ruling is narrow but sends a clear message: status labels like “drug user” are not enough to cancel a core constitutional right.^[2]

What The Court Actually Decided In Hemani

The case, United States v. Hemani, started when federal agents searched a Texas home, found a lawfully purchased handgun, and learned the owner admitted to using marijuana regularly.^[7] Prosecutors charged him under a federal law that makes it a felony for any “unlawful user” of a controlled substance, including marijuana, to possess a firearm.^[1] A federal trial judge threw the case out, and the conservative United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed, saying the law could not be used when the person was not armed while intoxicated.^[6]

The Biden-era Justice Department appealed, asking the Supreme Court to restore the broad national ban on gun ownership by anyone the government labels an unlawful drug user.^[1] On June 18, 2026, the justices unanimously rejected that push.^[2]^[8] Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion held that the Second Amendment does not allow the government to criminally prosecute a sober, otherwise law-abiding marijuana user just for having a gun.^[8] The Court said the government failed to prove that our history includes anything like a blanket ban on ordinary users of a disfavored substance.^[2]

How Bruen And History Boxed In The Federal Ban

This ruling grows out of the Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.^[1]^[2] In that case, the Court said modern gun laws must fit within the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. That means the government must point to similar limits that existed around the founding era or Reconstruction era. In Hemani, the Justice Department tried to lean on old laws about “drunkards” and people found dangerous while intoxicated.^[1]

Gorsuch and all eight colleagues said that was not good enough.^[8] The Court drew a sharp line between laws that stop people from carrying guns while they are actively drunk and a sweeping rule that disarms anyone who sometimes uses marijuana, even when sober at home.^[2] The record showed no evidence that Hemani was high when he possessed the gun, nor that he had a history of violence.^[1]^[7] Under Bruen, that kind of “status-only” ban looks nothing like the targeted, temporary restrictions that were accepted in earlier American history.^[3]^[18]

Why This Matters For Gun Owners, States, And The Deep State

The decision does not erase every part of the “unlawful user” ban, but it guts the idea that a simple admission of cannabis use lets Washington cancel your gun rights.^[2]^[3] The Court left room for future cases where the government can show real impairment, proven addiction, or a specific finding that someone is dangerous.^[2] But federal agents and prosecutors can no longer treat millions of peaceful marijuana users as second-class citizens who lose a constitutional right for what they do in their own homes.

Today, the Supreme Court just ruled 9-0 in United States v. Hemani that the federal government can’t prosecute casual marijuana users for owning guns under the current law.

They struck down the application of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) against a Texas man who used marijuana regularly…

— Peace Advocate (@AlaskanNative95) June 18, 2026

This ruling also exposes the mess federal elites created by keeping marijuana illegal nationwide while many states have legalized or decriminalized it.^[6]^[11] For years, ordinary people followed state law, got medical cards, or used cannabis casually, then learned—often too late—that Washington viewed them as prohibited persons under the Gun Control Act.^[3] In Hemani, the Supreme Court signaled that this kind of trap-line enforcement does not square with the Second Amendment’s promise that “the people” includes non-violent cannabis users.^[18]