Fifth Circuit Rules Habitual Marijuana Use Cannot Justify Permanent Firearm Ban in Key Second Amendment Case

The decision marks one of the most significant Second Amendment developments since the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling reshaped how lower courts evaluate gun restrictions. The case centers on Kevin LaMarcus Mitchell, who previously pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as an unlawful user of a controlled substance. That offense, tied to his admitted daily marijuana use, served as the sole predicate for a later felon-in-possession charge. Mitchell argued the newer charge violated the Second Amendment because his prior marijuana-related conviction did not justify a lifetime prohibition.

In a detailed opinion, the Fifth Circuit agreed and held that the government failed to identify historical firearm regulations that support permanently disarming someone who was not found to be intoxicated while armed. The judges emphasized that early American laws allowed authorities to temporarily disarm people who were actively under the influence but did not strip gun rights based on regular or habitual drug use alone. The court also rejected the government’s attempt to rely on Mitchell’s broader criminal record, noting that only felony convictions punishable by more than one year may be considered in an as-applied challenge.

The ruling leaves the underlying federal ban on domestic violence misdemeanants untouched and makes clear it is limited to the narrow facts of Mitchell’s case. But it adds to the growing list of courts questioning whether marijuana use—still illegal federally but permitted in much of the country—can serve as the basis for a permanent loss of constitutional rights.

Mitchell’s conviction was vacated, and the case was sent back with the charges dismissed.