WASHINGTON — In a striking convergence of ideological lines, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Monday in a case that pits marijuana users' rights against federal gun restrictions, forging unlikely partnerships across the political divide. At issue is a longstanding federal law prohibiting individuals who use illegal drugs, including marijuana, from possessing firearms, a statute now challenged under the Second Amendment following the court's landmark 2022 expansion of gun rights.
The case, centered on Ali Danial Hemani, a Texas resident charged with a felony for keeping a gun in his home while admitting to smoking marijuana every other day, highlights the tensions between evolving cannabis laws and firearm regulations. Hemani's legal battle gained traction after the conservative-leaning 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the charges in 2023, ruling that the law only applies to those intoxicated while armed. Federal prosecutors, backed by the Trump administration's Justice Department, are appealing to the Supreme Court to reinstate the case, arguing that habitual drug users pose a significant public safety risk.
Adding to the intrigue, the Trump administration — typically a staunch defender of gun rights — finds itself aligned with gun-control advocates like Everytown for Gun Safety in supporting the restriction. "Restricting firearm use by illegal drug users is ‘as old as legislative recognition of the drug problem itself,’" attorneys for Everytown wrote in their court filing, emphasizing that the law aligns with the Supreme Court's historical tradition test for gun regulations established in the 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision.
On the opposing side, a coalition including the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is defending Hemani's right to bear arms. Cecillia Wang, legal director at the ACLU, criticized the law as unconstitutionally vague. “We’re deeply concerned with the potential of this statute to basically give federal prosecutors a blank check,” Wang said. “Millions of Americans use marijuana and there is no way for them to know based on words of this statute whether they could be charged or convicted of this crime because they own a firearm.”
The federal statute in question, part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, broadly prohibits "unlawful users" of controlled substances from owning guns, encompassing not just marijuana but all illegal drugs. While marijuana remains a Schedule I substance under federal law — despite President Donald Trump's recent executive order to expedite its reclassification to a less restrictive category — it is legal for medical use in 38 states and for recreational purposes in 24 states as of early 2024, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Hemani's encounter with the law stemmed from a 2019 FBI search of his Houston-area home during a broader investigation, where agents discovered a small amount of cocaine alongside the firearm. Although no charges were filed related to the cocaine, the gun possession charge proceeded based on Hemani's self-reported marijuana use. The Justice Department contends that such users present "unique dangers to society — especially because they pose a grave risk of armed, hostile encounters with police officers while impaired," drawing parallels to historical restrictions on intoxicated individuals from the 19th century.
Gun rights groups, however, argue that the law overreaches into personal choices about substances that society has increasingly normalized. Lawyers for the Second Amendment Foundation, a key supporter of Hemani, asserted in court documents: “Americans have traditionally chosen which substances are acceptable for responsible recreational use, and the fundamental right to keep and bear arms was never denied to people who occasionally partook in such drugs — unless they were carrying arms while actively intoxicated.”
The case echoes the 2024 conviction of Hunter Biden, son of former President Joe Biden, who was found guilty of lying on a federal firearm purchase form about his crack cocaine addiction. Prosecutors in that Delaware case successfully invoked the same statute, underscoring its application to non-marijuana substances. Yet, cannabis advocates point out that marijuana's federal illegality creates a patchwork of enforcement, disproportionately affecting users in states where it's legal.
Joe A. Bondy, chair of the board of directors for NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, dismissed the notion that barring cannabis users from gun ownership would curb violence. “It’s laughable to think that by outlawing cannabis users possessing firearms you’ll minimize the problem with gun violence,” Bondy said. He noted that NORML, one of the oldest cannabis advocacy groups founded in 1970, sees growing support from demographics like baby boomers using marijuana edibles for conditions such as arthritis and insomnia.
This unusual alignment underscores broader shifts in American politics. Gun rights, long a Republican cornerstone, now intersect with cannabis legalization, a cause championed by progressives but gaining bipartisan traction — evidenced by Trump's reclassification push and Republican-led states like Florida and Ohio approving recreational marijuana in recent ballot measures. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's conservative majority has bolstered Second Amendment protections in cases like Bruen but upheld restrictions in others, such as a 2024 ruling allowing disarmament of those under domestic violence orders.
Lower courts have been split since Bruen, with some circuits upholding the drug-user ban and others narrowing it to active intoxication. The 5th Circuit's decision in Hemani's favor, issued in August 2023, followed a similar ruling by the 3rd Circuit in a Pennsylvania case involving a medical marijuana user. Federal appeals courts in the 8th and 11th Circuits, however, have sustained the broader prohibition.
Legal experts anticipate the Supreme Court could use this case to clarify how its history-and-tradition framework applies to modern drug laws. The Justice Department argues that drug users mirror the "dangerous" classes historically disarmed, like the habitually drunk or the mentally ill in colonial-era statutes. Critics, including the ACLU, counter that marijuana's relative safety — backed by studies from the National Academies of Sciences showing no link to increased violence — undermines such analogies.
Beyond marijuana, the ruling could impact users of other substances, from prescription opioids to psychedelics under reform in cities like Denver and Oakland. With an estimated 18% of Americans reporting past-year marijuana use per a 2023 Gallup poll, the stakes extend to millions potentially facing felony charges for routine activities like hunting or home defense.
As the court prepares for oral arguments on October 14, 2024 — listed on the docket as Garland v. Hemani — observers from both sides express cautious optimism. The Trump administration's brief, filed in July 2024, urges reversal of the 5th Circuit, while Hemani's supporters, including a coalition of 20 states with legal cannabis programs, have submitted amicus briefs highlighting enforcement disparities.
Whatever the outcome, the case signals a pivotal moment in reconciling America's dual tracks of gun expansion and drug decriminalization. For Hemani, now in his mid-40s and out of custody pending appeal, the decision could determine whether a personal habit forever bars him from exercising a constitutional right. Broader implications loom for policy, as Congress considers bills like the MORE Act to deschedule marijuana entirely, potentially mooting the dispute but leaving unresolved questions for other drugs.
In the marble halls of the Supreme Court, photographed last on January 13, 2026, by AP's Julia Demaree Nikhinson during a routine session, these alliances may reshape the legal landscape for years to come.