Supreme Court Hears Major Gun-Rights Case Today That Could Impact Millions of Cannabis Consumers
- The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing United States v. Hemani, a key Second Amendment case challenging whether federal law can prohibit firearm possession by illegal drug users under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).
- Ali Danial Hemani was charged after FBI agents found a gun along with marijuana and cocaine in his home; lower courts dismissed the indictment, ruling the law unconstitutional as applied to those not under influence at the time of possession.
- The government argues the law is constitutional based on historical precedent of disarming intoxicated persons and existing state restrictions, while Hemani contends the statute is vague and excessively broad, especially regarding regular marijuana use.
- The Supreme Court’s decision could impact millions of legal marijuana users nationwide, potentially upholding or narrowing the federal ban on gun possession for drug users, with broad implications for future prosecutions.
Today, March 2, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. is hearing oral argument in United States v. Hemani, a pivotal Second Amendment case that asks whether the federal government may prohibit people who use illegal drugs from possessing firearms. At issue in Hemani is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal law that makes it a felony for anyone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to have a gun. Federal prosecutors charged Ali Danial Hemani after FBI agents searched his home and found a Glock 19 9 mm pistol alongside marijuana and cocaine; Hemani admitted he used marijuana regularly.
Hemani’s lawyers successfully persuaded a federal trial judge to throw out the indictment, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld that dismissal based on precedent saying the law is unconstitutional as applied to someone who was not shown to be under the influence at the time he had the firearm. The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case late last year.
The government argues the law passes constitutional muster because Americans historically disarmed people who were intoxicated, and because similar restrictions on drug users exist in most states and territories. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that even with the Second Amendment’s “central role” in our constitutional scheme, the government can meet its burden in these circumstances.
Hemani contends the statute is unconstitutionally vague and that there’s no historical tradition of disarming people simply because they regularly use a substance. He told the justices that the government’s own arguments suggest it cannot clearly define when someone is an “unlawful user,” and that treating regular marijuana use as a trigger for a felony gun offense sweeps far too broadly.
What happens today could have sweeping implications. Tens of millions of Americans use marijuana under state law, and if the court upholds the statute against Hemani’s challenge, many of those individuals could remain barred under federal law from possessing firearms, even if they are sober when they do so. A ruling in Hemani’s favor could narrow the reach of the federal ban and affect prosecutions nationwide.
Oral arguments at the Supreme Court traditionally begin around 10 a.m. Eastern time on argument days, with live audio available from the Court’s website and later posted transcripts.