Supreme Court Says Weed Users Can Own Guns, And the Government’s Own Rescheduling Helped Decide It

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that the federal government cannot automatically strip cannabis consumers of their Second Amendment rights, with Justice Neil Gorsuch tying the 9-0 decision directly to the government’s own move to reschedule marijuana.

The opinion in U.S. v. Hemani found that prosecuting Texas resident Ali Danial Hemani under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute barring “unlawful” drug users from possessing firearms, violated the Second Amendment as applied. The ruling is narrow and leaves the statute standing, but it forecloses the government’s broader theory that any regular marijuana user is categorically dangerous.

The government “asks us to conclude that anyone who regularly uses marijuana is categorically violent and dangerous without any further showing,” Gorsuch wrote. “All based on little more than its current say-so, one at odds with its own regulatory actions.”

That phrase, “its own regulatory actions,” is the key business signal. Gorsuch leaned on the government’s rescheduling of cannabis to undercut its own case. The opinion cites the April 2026 order from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche that moved state-licensed and FDA-approved medical marijuana products to Schedule III, and notes that Washington “has not just tolerated” the rise of state-legal cannabis, “it helped fuel” it. Having already reclassified the drug, the court found, the government is “awkwardly positioned” to argue that the people who use it are uniquely dangerous.

§ 922(g)(3) is the same statute used to convict Hunter Biden in 2024. Hemani, who told federal agents he used marijuana “about every other day,” was prosecuted in 2022 after agents found a Glock 9mm and 60 grams of cannabis at his Texas home. He was not charged with any other crime or accused of using the gun while intoxicated.

The case produced an unusual political alignment. The American Civil Liberties Union served as co-counsel for Hemani, and the National Rifle Association and cannabis reform group NORML filed in support. On the government’s side were 19 state attorneys general, the anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana and gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety.

“Today’s unanimous 9-0 decision makes it clear that the government cannot make it a crime for people to own a gun, which the Supreme Court has held is a fundamental constitutional right, simply because they use marijuana,” Cecillia Wang, legal director at the ACLU, said in a press release. “With nearly half of Americans reporting marijuana use at some point in their lives, this ruling protects the rights of millions.”

Smart Approaches to Marijuana CEO Kevin Sabet criticized the decision. “Today’s highly potent marijuana and guns go together just fine. They do not,” he said, adding that the group is working with congressional allies to strengthen protections “consistent with today’s narrow ruling.”

The decision lands as federal agencies keep recalibrating around the Trump administration’s rescheduling order. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives posted a revised Form 4473 in May to acknowledge the federally legal status of medical marijuana under Schedule III. ATF also moved earlier this year to narrow the definition of “unlawful user” under the same statute, with an interim final rule open for public comment through June 30. A broader DEA hearing on cannabis rescheduling is scheduled for later this month, following the opening of the DEA registration window.

The court left room. Prosecutions tied to addiction, present intoxication or individualized proof of danger can still go forward. But on the question in front of it, the justices were unanimous: the government’s broadest theory for disarming cannabis consumers no longer holds, and its own decision to reschedule the drug helped close the door.