Politics
Supreme Court Should Uphold Gun Ban For Marijuana Users, 19 State AGs Tell Justices
Attorneys general for 19 states and Washington, D.C. are siding with the federal government in a U.S. Supreme Court case that could decide the fate of a law preventing marijuana users from buying or possessing firearms.
In an amicus brief for the case U.S. v. Hemani that was submitted to the court on Friday, the top state prosecutors—led by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul (D)—said justices should maintain the current statute known as 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).
That law has been challenged in multiple federal courts in recent years, but the Supreme Court agreed to take up Hemani, a case that led a lower court to rule that the federal prohibition on gun ownership by people who use cannabis violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“I am urging the Supreme Court to reverse the appellate court’s decision because the mix of habitual drug use and firearms poses recognized public safety risks,” Raoul said in a press release. “Allowing habitual drug users to carry or use firearms significantly increases danger to our communities.”
“I am proud to lead this bipartisan coalition, as we all agreed we need to work together to protect our states and communities from gun violence,” he said.
In the brief, the attorneys general—most of which represent states that have enacted adult-use legalization within their borders—said they have a “substantial interest in the health, safety, and welfare of their communities, which includes preventing firearms from coming into the hands of people likely to misuse them.”
“That interest is implicated by this case, which addresses the extent to which the federal government may prohibit an individual who is an ‘unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance’ from possessing firearms,” they said.
The brief doesn’t focus singularly on the marijuana and gun issue, which can be partly explained by the fact that the defendant in the case was not only a cannabis consumer but also a user of cocaine who’s sold drugs in the past, according to court findings. But the impact of a ruling would likely have substantial implications for marijuana consumers and patients.
The reasoning that other courts have used to deem the firearm ban unconstitutional is “flawed in multiple respects,” the attorneys general said, “including that it misdescribes the scope of the relevant historical tradition, misapplies this Court’s precedents, and unduly ties the hands of legislatures seeking to protect the public from the full range of dangers associated with combining firearms and drugs.”
While the district court in Hemani argued that gun statutes should distinguish between people who are actively impaired from controlled substances and drug users who don’t possess guns while intoxicated, the latter group, the brief says that “habitual drug use can cause some individuals to experience chronic psychological disturbances that affect their conduct and decision-making in a manner that compromises their ability to safely handle firearms.”
“Further, because much drug use is illicit, habitual drug users frequently interact with the illegal drug trade, which is inherently dangerous,” it says.
The brief cites a related case, U.S. v. Harris, where a regular cannabis user lost his gun after becoming intoxicated and the weapon ended up in the hands of a felon who was prohibited from possessing firearms.
“In short, amici States have a substantial interest in retaining the flexibility to address new societal concerns with appropriately tailored firearms regulations that are consistent with the principles underlying this country’s historical tradition. Section 922(g)(3), as well as its state counterparts, respect that balance.”
Crime trends across the country show that the “altered mental states caused by these and other drugs can be dangerous when combined with firearms, even when an individual user does not necessarily intend violence or harm or even fire the weapon,” the state officials said.
Other signatories of the amicus brief include the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington State and Washington, D.C.
Notably, all of those states have legalized adult-use marijuana, with the exception of Hawaii, where only medical cannabis is legal.
“Drugs and guns are a dangerous combination,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) said. “Potentially dangerous drug users should not possess firearms—this is a commonsense notion to prevent people who use drugs from harming themselves, their loved ones, or their communities.”
“Both red and blue states alike—recognizing the dangers posed by combining habitual drug use with firearms—have imposed firearm restrictions to prevent gun violence,” he said, adding that justices should “reverse a lower court decision, uphold public safety, and keep firearms out of the reach of people who are drug users.”
Several other briefs were also submitted on Friday to justices in the case, which was granted cert last month. Firearm control groups including Everytown for Gun Safety, Second Amendment Law Scholars, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Global Action on Gun Violence have told the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court’s ruling in the matter, for example. A coalition of history and law professors also submitted a brief.
Also last week, Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and 21 other prohibitionist groups filed a brief, urging justices to uphold the constitutionality of the federal gun ban for people who use cannabis—which they claim is associated with violence and psychosis.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, for his part, told the Supreme Court that people who use illegal drugs “pose a greater danger” than those who drink alcohol.
The latests amicus briefs were filed just one day after President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to expeditiously complete a rulemaking process to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). It’s uncertain to what extent, if at all, the modest policy change would impact the pending gun cases.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration was evidently concerned about potential legal liability in federal cases for people convicted of violating gun laws simply by being a cannabis consumer who possessed a firearm, documents recently obtained by Marijuana Moment show.
The previously unpublished 2024 guidance from former President Joe Biden’s Justice Department generally cautioned U.S. attorneys to use discretion in prosecuting federal cannabis cases, particularly for offenses that qualified people for pardons during his term. But one section seems especially relevant as the Supreme Court takes on a case challenging the constitutionality of the current federal gun statute.
With respect to Hemani, in a separate August filing for the case, the Justice Department also emphasized that “the question presented is the subject of a multi-sided and growing circuit conflict.” In seeking the court’s grant of cert, the solicitor general also noted that the defendant is a joint American and Pakistani citizen with alleged ties to Iranian entities hostile to the U.S., putting him the FBI’s radar.
Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to take up Hemani, if justices declare 922(g)(3) constitutional, such a ruling could could mean government wins in the remaining cases. The high court last month denied a petition for cert in U.S. v. Cooper, while leaving pending decisions on U.S. v. Daniels and U.S. v. Sam.
The court also recently denied a petition for cert in another gun and marijuana case, U.S. v. Baxter, but that wasn’t especially surprising as both DOJ and the defendants advised against further pursing the matter after a lower court reinstated his conviction for being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm.
Meanwhile, in recent interviews with Marijuana Moment, several Republican senators shared their views on the federal ban on gun possession by people who use marijuana—with one saying that if alcohol drinkers can lawfully buy and use firearms, the same standard should apply to cannabis consumers.
Separately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit earlier this year sided with a federal district court that dismissed an indictment against Jared Michael Harrison, who was charged in Oklahoma in 2022 after police discovered cannabis and a handgun in his vehicle during a traffic stop.
The case has now been remanded to that lower court, which determined that the current statute banning “unlawful” users of marijuana from possessing firearms violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
The lower court largely based his initial decision on an interpretation of a Supreme Court ruling in which the justices generally created a higher standard for policies that seek to impose restrictions on gun rights.
In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District, judges recently ruled in favor of medical cannabis patients who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights to possess firearms.
As a recent report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) explained the current legal landscape, a growing number of federal courts are now “finding constitutional problems in the application of at least some parts” of the firearms prohibition.
In a recent ruling, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated a defendant’s conviction and remanded the case back to a district court, noting that a retrial before a jury may be necessary to determine whether cannabis in fact caused the defendant to be dangerous or pose a credible threat to others.
The Third Circuit separately said in a published opinion that district courts must make “individualized judgments” to determine whether 922(g)(3) is constitutional as applied to particular defendants.
A federal court in October agreed to delay proceedings in a years-long Florida-based case challenging the constitutionality of the ban on gun ownership by people who use medical marijuana, with the Justice Department arguing that the Supreme Court’s recent decision to take up Hemani warrants a stay in the lower court.
—
Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.
Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—
Earlier this year, a federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that the ban was unconstitutional as applied to two defendants, writing that the government failed to establish that the “sweeping” prohibition against gun ownership by marijuana users was grounded in historical precedent.
A federal judge in El Paso separately ruled late last year that the government’s ongoing ban on gun ownership by habitual marijuana users is unconstitutional in the case of a defendant who earlier pleaded guilty to the criminal charge. The court allowed the man to withdraw the plea and ordered that the indictment against him be dismissed.
DOJ has claimed in multiple federal cases over the past several years that the statute banning cannabis consumers from owning or possessing guns is constitutional because it’s consistent with the nation’s history of disarming “dangerous” individuals.
In 2023, for example, the Justice Department told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that historical precedent “comfortably” supports the restriction. Cannabis consumers with guns pose a unique danger to society, the Biden administration claimed, in part because they’re “unlikely” to store their weapon properly.
Meanwhile, some states have passed their own laws either further restricting or attempting to preserve gun rights as they relate to marijuana.
Recently a Pennsylvania lawmaker introduced a bill meant to remove state barriers to medical marijuana patients carrying firearms.
Colorado activists also attempted to qualify an initiative for November’s ballot that would have protected the Second Amendment rights of marijuana consumers in that state, but the campaign’s signature-gathering drive ultimately fell short.
As 2024 drew to a close, the ATF issued a warning to Kentucky residents that, if they choose to participate in the state’s medical marijuana program that’s set to launch imminently, they will be prohibited from buying or possessing firearms under federal law.
The official said that while people who already own firearms aren’t “expected to” turn them over if they become state-legal cannabis patients, those who “wish to follow federal law and not be in violation of it” must “make the decision to divest themselves of those firearms.”
Since then, bipartisan state lawmakers have introduced legislation that would urge Kentucky’s representatives in Congress to amend federal law to clarify that users of medical marijuana may legally possess firearms, though no action has since been taken on that bill.
Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) said in January that he supported the legislature’s effort to urge the state’s congressional delegation to call for federal reforms to protect the Second Amendment rights of medical marijuana patients, but the governor added that he’d like to see even more sweeping change on the federal level.
