The U.S. Supreme Court signaled Monday that it may narrow a federal law prohibiting marijuana users from possessing firearms, as justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether the policy aligns with the Constitution’s protections for gun ownership.
The case centers on a Texas man charged under a federal statute that bars unlawful drug users from owning guns. During oral arguments, several members of the court suggested the law may be overly broad when applied to people who use cannabis occasionally but are otherwise law-abiding.
The statute is being challenged in light of the court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that modern gun regulations must be consistent with historical firearm restrictions from the nation’s early history. Under that framework, courts must evaluate whether similar laws existed when the Constitution was adopted.
Several justices appeared skeptical that the government had demonstrated a sufficient historical basis for banning gun ownership among marijuana users.
Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether occasional cannabis use actually makes someone dangerous. “What is the government’s evidence that using marijuana a couple of times a week makes someone dangerous?” she asked during the hearing.
Meanwhile, Neil Gorsuch raised questions about the complicated legal status of cannabis in the United States, where it remains federally illegal but is permitted for medical or recreational use in many states. “What do we do with the fact that marijuana is sort of illegal and sort of isn’t?” he asked.
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also expressed doubts, suggesting the prohibition may struggle to meet the historical standards set by the Bruen decision.
Attorneys for the federal government argued the restriction is justified by longstanding traditions of disarming people considered dangerous. They cited early laws that barred “habitual drunkards” from possessing weapons.
But Hemani’s lawyer countered that those historical laws targeted extreme behavior and should not apply to modern cannabis consumers, many of whom use marijuana legally under state law for medical or recreational purposes.
The case has produced unusual alliances. Civil liberties groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and gun-rights advocates like the National Rifle Association have both supported the challenge, alongside cannabis advocacy groups including NORML. Opposing them are gun-safety organizations such as Everytown for Gun Safety.
Some justices, including John Roberts, warned that weakening the law could complicate efforts to keep firearms away from people using more dangerous substances.
The court is expected to issue a decision by late June, a ruling that could reshape how federal gun laws apply to the millions of Americans who use cannabis.
Read the whole article from PBS here.
