Supreme Court rules for marijuana user prosecuted for gun possession

Court Battles Supreme Court rules for marijuana user prosecuted for gun possession by Zach Schonfeld - 06/18/26 10:10 AM ET Link copied by Zach Schonfeld - 06/18/26 10:10 AM ET Link copied

NOW PLAYING

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday the government can’t criminally prosecute a man for possessing a firearm simply because he regularly smoked marijuana, rejecting the government’s comparison to the disarmament habitual drunkards in the founding era.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that it violates his right to keep arms under the conservative justices’ expanded Second Amendment test. It requires gun control measures be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

“To square that expansive theory with the Second Amendment, the government invites us to draw an analogy between its present regulation and historical laws addressing habitual drunkards,” Gorsuch wrote.

“Those laws, the government contends, demonstrate a tradition of firearm regulation consistent with its effort to disarm any regular user of any controlled substance without any further showing,” he continued. “But the government’s analogy fails under every measure it asks us to consider.”

A slight chuckle rippled through the courtroom when Gorsuch noted that, if habitual drunkard laws applied to those who drank regularly, two of America’s founders “could have faced trouble.” John Adams was known to drink “a tankard of hard cider” with his breakfast, and some accounts say James Madison “consumed a pint of whiskey daily.”

At issue was the federal law making it a crime for someone “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess a firearm.

Though the decision raises the bar for future prosecutions, it leaves the door open for defendants to still be convicted if the government can prove they are using illegal drugs at the time they are found with a gun.

Ali Hemani, a dual U.S.-Pakistani citizen, was indicted under the statute after law enforcement searched his home and found a Glock 9 mm pistol and marijuana. They also found cocaine, but the gun charge relies only on the marijuana.

The government does not claim Hemani was high on marijuana at the time of the search. But he admitted to law enforcement that he smoked it every other day.

Like other defendants charged under the statute — including Hunter Biden, until his father pardoned him — Hemani argued he can’t be prosecuted following the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment test it laid out in 2022.

The conservative majority ruled that gun control measures must have a historical analogue to be deemed constitutional.

As the court unanimously sided Hemani, two of the liberal justices signaled they still disagree with the test.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, wrote that it’s “unworkable” and called on her colleagues to overrule the framework.

In the latest fight, the Trump administration defended the crime’s constitutionality by pointing to founding-era laws restricting habitual drunkards’ gun rights. And if any doubts remained, the Justice Department emphasized that the attorney general has authority to restore an individual’s gun rights on a case-by-case basis.

“The historical laws on which it relies targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways,” Gorsuch wrote. “And faced with all these shortcomings in the government’s submission, we cannot say it has carried its conceded burden of showing its prosecution of Mr. Hemani complies with the Second Amendment.”

“Today’s unanimous 9-0 decision makes it clear that the government cannot make it crime for people to own a gun, which the Supreme Court has held is a fundamental constitutional right, simply because they use marijuana,” said Cecillia Wang, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Hemani.

“With nearly half of Americans reporting marijuana use at some point in their lives, this ruling protects the rights of millions and curbs the government’s ability to impose arbitrary and discriminatory penalties,” Wang continued. “The court has sent a strong message that the government cannot criminalize the conduct of large numbers of people by making categorical and unfounded assumptions about whether they are dangerous.”

Sophie Brams contributed.

Updated at 10:47 a.m. EDT

Add as preferred source on Google Tags Hunter Biden James Madison John Adams Ketanji Brown Jackson Neil Gorsuch Sonia Sotomayor

Link copied