The Supreme Court Thursday curbed the power of the federal government to disarm a frequent marijuana user, limiting the scope of a law enacted during the 1960s to keep weapons out of the hands of Americans who regularly use drugs.
In an opinion written by Justice Neil Gorusch that had no dissent, the court ruled that the government’s prosecution was inconsistent with the Second Amendment.
“In many respects, this case is a narrow one,” Gorsuch wrote. “We do not address efforts to ban addicts or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm. We do not address other prophylactic laws Congress might adopt after determining that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing firearms.”
The case centered on Ali Danial Hemani, a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan, who was indicted in 2023 on a single count of violating the federal anti-guns-and-drugs law. Though the Justice Department accused Hemani of many things — dealing drugs, using cocaine and sympathizing with Iran — his indictment followed an FBI search of his family’s home that turned up a Glock 9mm pistol and 60 grams of pot.
But the appeal was wrapped up in forces far greater than Hemani’s own circumstances, including the conservative Supreme Court’s push in recent years to weigh gun laws with an eye toward history. And the case reached the high court at a time of broadly shifting views on marijuana use: roughly half of US states have legalized small amounts of marijuana for recreational use and an even higher share of states allow the drug to be used medicinally.
The Trump administration, which has professed robust support for the Second Amendment, nevertheless defended the federal law in this case, arguing that guns and drugs are a dangerous combination. The Justice Department said about 300 people have been charged with violating the law annually. A conviction can carry a 15-year prison sentence.
But during oral arguments in March it was clear both conservative and liberal justices had reservations with the breadth of the law, which doesn’t define which drugs are covered and whether someone needed to be under the influence at the time they were wielding a weapon. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump nominee, asked whether a person taking Ambien without a prescription would be covered under the law – a hypothetical that underscored the law’s scope.
“We do not question that sometimes an individual’s unlawful use of marijuana (or any other controlled substance) may render him a danger to others,” the court wrote. “But, again, the government disclaims the need to show anything like that in this case. Instead, it asks us to conclude that anyone who regularly uses marijuana is categorically violent and dangerous without any further showing.”
And that, Gorsuch said, was a bridge too far.
This story is breaking and will be updated.
