Cannabis is legal in some form in nearly every U.S. state, while medical marijuana was recently moved to Schedule III. Yet federal law has continued to treat cannabis consumers differently when it comes to gun ownership. Now, the Supreme Court has ruled that simply consuming cannabis does not automatically disqualify someone from owning firearms.
RELATED: Federal lawsuit targets Trump cannabis rescheduling order
The justices decided unanimously in favor of Ali Danial Hemani, a Texas man who argued that a federal law barring firearm ownership by people who regularly use illegal drugs violates the Second Amendment.
Hemani was previously charged with a felony for allegedly keeping a gun at home while regularly using cannabis. Hemani’s lawyers secured dismissal of the charge after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the ban unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s expanded Second Amendment framework.
The Justice Department under President Donald Trump eventually asked the Supreme Court to take up the case.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the opinion narrowly limits the government’s power to disarm drug users who are not considered dangerous. Hemani was not charged with any other crimes and was not accused of possessing or using a firearm while under the influence.
RELATED: The FDA is quietly fast-tracking a THC drug — and it’s a big deal
The law under which Hemani was originally charged was intended to keep guns away from people deemed a threat, but millions of Americans now use marijuana, Gorsuch wrote. Given broader changes in cannabis policy, he wrote, it is difficult to assume that every cannabis consumer is categorically dangerous.
“Whatever one thinks of these developments, the federal government has not just tolerated them; it helped fuel them,” Gorsuch wrote. “All of which leaves it awkwardly positioned to suggest that the millions of Americans who now regularly use marijuana are categorically and unusually dangerous.”
The decision aligns with questions and comments several justices made during oral arguments earlier this year.
“What is the government’s evidence that using marijuana a couple of times a week makes someone dangerous?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked during the hearing.
The ruling does not affect laws governing firearm possession or use while under the influence. People may still face criminal penalties for possessing or using a gun while impaired, depending on the circumstances and applicable laws.
RELATED: The next cannabis “green rush” may not happen in America
Hemani’s case attracted support from groups across the political spectrum, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle Association, and cannabis advocacy organizations such as NORML.
Joseph A. Bondy, NORML chair and co-counsel of record for the organization’s amicus brief, told GreenState the decision affirms that the Constitution “protects people, not stereotypes.”
“Today’s decision is an important vindication of personal freedom,” Bondy said. “The Court recognized that responsible adults do not lose their Second Amendment rights merely because they consume cannabis, absent an individualized showing of dangerousness or misuse.”
The decision marks a legal setback for the Trump administration, which opposed Hemani’s challenge despite taking positions against some other firearm restrictions. Representatives for the Department of Justice and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The debate over gun control and the right to bear arms is a hotly contested one. The latest Supreme Court ruling could have implications for millions of cannabis consumers living in states where marijuana is legal under state law but remains prohibited under federal law.
