Marijuana use doesn’t erase gun rights, Supreme Court rules

The Supreme Court delivered a unanimous ruling on Thursday expanding Second Amendment rights for users of illegal drugs. Justices ruled in the case of Ali Danial Hemani, a Texas man convicted of violating a federal statute barring anyone illegally using drugs from owning a firearm. The initial charges came after a federal agent in 2022 searched Hemani’s home on suspicion of terrorism-related activities and found 60 grams of marijuana and a pistol. Hemani admitted to using marijuana every few days, prompting a conviction under federal law, according court documents.

If Hemani admitted to using marijuana, how is he appealing the conviction? The law stated that unlawful drug users were barred from owning guns without defining what made a person an unlawful drug user, Hemani argued. The Texan’s legal filing asked if someone who used an illegal substance once a year would be considered an illegal drug user the same as a daily user would. He further questioned whether the law centered on the frequency or the amount of the drug use. Hemani characterized the law as unconditionally vague, and argued that the statute violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms.

What was the court’s rationale? Justice Neil Gorsuch penned the court’s majority opinion that sided with Hemani. The government searched Hemani’s home on suspicion of terrorism, yet brought charges months later that had nothing to do with the initial concern, Gorsuch noted. Authorities never contended that Hemani posed a danger because of the drug use, or accused him of doing anything with the gun beyond simply possessing it, the opinion added.

The court also took issue with the law on firearm possession not taking into consideration the varying classifications of controlled substances. The Controlled Substances Act ranks some drugs as Schedule I, with high addiction risks and no accepted medical uses, down to Schedule V drugs with low abuse rates and various medical uses. The firearm possession law doesn’t take into account the type of controlled substance an individual uses, or whether that drug ever made him a danger to himself or others, Gorsuch wrote. The law further never accounted for an individual’s purpose for owning a gun or how safely the firearm is made secure, the order added.

The court did acknowledge valid concerns around drug users possessing guns, but found the law to be overly broad. Affording the government this type of power to automatically designate a group and disqualify them from owning guns would run the risk of the Second Amendment being quickly swallowed up, Gorsuch wrote.