Supreme Court Backs Right of Some Drug Users to Possess Guns (2)

The US Supreme Court ruled that the government can’t categorically bar marijuana users from possessing firearms in a decision that strengthens the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

Saying unanimously that a Texas marijuana smoker can’t be prosecuted for having a gun, the justices narrowed the reach of a federal law that prohibits gun possession by illegal drug users and addicted people.

Writing for the court on Thursday, Justice Neil Gorsuch said the prosecution lacked the type of historical pedigree the court has demanded in recent years for restrictions on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

“We appreciate that drugs and guns can sometimes make for a dangerous mix,” Gorsuch wrote. But he said the government’s “expansive” approach to the federal ban couldn’t be squared with the country’s historical approach toward firearms.

Gorsuch said the ruling was a “narrow one” that didn’t address efforts to keep guns out of the hands of addicts or people who are intoxicated. Still, the decision will affect state laws as well as federal law.

The District of Columbia and 16 states prohibit gun possession by habitual drug users and another 22 states restrict the rights of those people to carry a weapon in public, according to a brief filed by a group of jurisdictions that supported the federal ban.

More than 240,000 people have been denied gun permits since 1998 because of drug use or addiction, according to federal statistics.

The case is one of two Second Amendment clashes the court is considering in its nine-month term, which is coming to a close this month. The justices are also scheduled to rule on a Hawaii law that bars people from bringing firearms to stores and other private property without the owner’s express permission.

The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority has expanded the right to bear arms in recent years. The court established a tough new test for gun restrictions in 2022, saying they can survive only if the government can show a history of analogous restrictions. That ruling also established a constitutional right to carry a handgun in public.

Gun Rulings

The marijuana clash centered on a 1968 federal law that bars gun possession by anyone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” The provision was used to convict Hunter Biden, the former president’s son, though he was charged under the addiction prong of the law, which Gorsuch said wasn’t affected by the ruling.

Although the outcome was unanimous, the justices divided on some of their reasoning. Two liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, said they continued to believe the court had “veered off course” in the 2022 decision, known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately to say he believed the entire law was unconstitutional because Congress exceeded its authority under the Constitution’s commerce clause. And in an unusual pairing, conservative Justice Samuel Alito and liberal Justice Elena Kagan joined together to say they would have written an even narrower opinion than Gorsuch did.

The case put the Justice Department in the position of arguing against gun rights, pitting it against some of President Donald Trump’s usual allies on culture-war issues. Trump came into office vowing to protect Second Amendment rights, but his administration in court has at times defended restrictions.

The clash involved Ali Danial Hemani, who was facing a one-count indictment. The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court after the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Hemani and ruled that the gun ban can’t be applied to people unless they are using illegal substances while in possession of a firearm.

The administration contended that the federal ban was akin to laws at the time of the country’s founding restricting the firearm rights of a “habitual drunkard.”

Gorsuch rejected the analogy, saying the habitual-drunkard laws were aimed at people who drank so much that they were impaired even when sober. He said that under the government’s reading of those laws, “many notable early Americans could have faced trouble,” including one-time presidents John Adams, who took “a tankard of hard cider” with breakfast, and James Madison, who some say “consumed a pint of whiskey” a day.

“In fact, just a few days before the framers signed the Constitution, a farewell party gathered for General Washington at Philadelphia’s City Tavern where 55 guests are said to have ordered 54 bottles of Madeira, 60 bottles of wine, 8 bottles of ‘Old stock,’ 22 bottles of porter, 8 bottles of cider, 12 bottles of beer, and 7 large bowls of punch,” Gorsuch wrote, referring to the country’s first president, George Washington.

The habitual-drunkard laws “targeted different kinds of people, did so for different purposes, and operated in different ways,” Gorsuch wrote.

The case is United States v. Hemani, 24-1234.

(Updates with breakdown, excerpts from opinions, starting in 10th paragraph.)

--With assistance from Zoe Tillman and Erik Larson.

© 2026 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.