The Supreme Court of the United States recently narrowed the reach of a federal firearms law in United States v. Hemani, 608 U.S. ___ (2026), holding that the government cannot prosecute an individual under the Gun Control Act for possessing a firearm at home based solely on his regular marijuana use.
The Court ruled that the Gun Control Act, which forbids an “unlawful user” of “controlled substances” to possess a firearm, is unconstitutional as applied to the challenger in this case. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for seven justices; Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, concurred in the judgment.
Background
In 2022, federal agents searched Mr. Hemani’s family home on suspicion of terrorism-related activity. He cooperated throughout the search: He surrendered a firearm he kept in the house, pointed the agents to marijuana on the property, and admitted using marijuana about every other day. More than six months later—on the strength of that admission alone and without any terrorism-related charges—the government prosecuted Hemani as an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance under the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). That statute prohibits certain people—including “unlawful users” of controlled substances, convicted felons, fugitives from justice, and domestic-violence offenders—from possessing firearms. A conviction would have exposed Hemani to up to 15 years in prison and a lifetime firearms ban.
The Court’s decision
The Court held that prosecuting Hemani violated the Second Amendment. Under Bruen and Rahimi, once the Second Amendment’s text covers a person’s conduct, the government must show that the restriction is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The government tried to carry that burden by analogizing Section 922(g)(3) to founding-era “habitual drunkard” laws. The Court rejected that analogy because those historical statutes targeted different categories (the incapacitated, not the merely regular user) for different reasons (public morals and the user’s own welfare, not risks of violence) and through different means (only after some form of process). The government thus failed to establish a historical tradition of disarming individuals like Hemani solely because they regularly use intoxicants.
The Court acknowledged that a person’s drug use may “render him a danger to others.” But the government had disclaimed any need to prove danger; it asked the Court to presume “that anyone who regularly uses marijuana is categorically violent and dangerous without any further showing.” The Court further observed that the government’s conduct undercut that premise: The U.S. Department of Justice has directed prosecutors to curtail enforcement against marijuana users in states that have legalized its use, and the United States recently moved certain marijuana products from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act.
Takeaways
The Court’s decision reflects evolving views and legal developments surrounding federal cannabis regulation. As the Court put it, “whatever one thinks of these developments, the federal government has not just tolerated them; it helped fuel them.” Indeed, the government’s revised regulatory approach left it “awkwardly positioned” to brand “the millions of Americans who now regularly use marijuana” as “categorically violent and dangerous without any further showing.”
The Second Amendment ruling, however, is deliberately narrow and reflects the Court’s continued preference for as-applied challenges over categorical holdings in this context. The Court disclaimed any view on disarming “addicts,” the presently intoxicated, felons, or users shown by individualized proof to be dangerous. That restraint reflects the same instinct displayed in Rahimi, which had upheld a different provision of Section 922(g). Companies operating in the cannabis space should watch how the executive branch’s shifting regulatory posture continues to shape—and constrain—federal drug-enforcement laws.
Members of Ashurst Perkins Coie’s regulatory team are available to assist clients navigating the patchwork of federal and state regulations applicable to cannabis and other products.
