The intersection of cannabis and gun rights has long been controversial, with many anti-cannabis advocates framing the issue as a conflict between weed and firearms. That confusion could soon be resolved: the Supreme Court has agreed to hear United States v. Hemani, a case that may determine whether federal rules barring “unlawful users” or addicts of controlled substances from owning firearms violate the Second Amendment.
RELATED: Federal hemp ban may be coming, lawmakers warn
The Trump administration asked the justices to intervene in the case of a Texas man, Ali Danial Hemani, who was charged with a felony for allegedly keeping a gun in his home while regularly consuming cannabis.
Hemani’s lawyers succeeded in getting the felony charge dismissed after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the blanket ban was unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s broadened interpretation of gun rights. However, the judges noted the restriction could still apply to those caught possessing firearms while actively under the influence.
The Justice Department appealed after a lower court struck down the federal law barring people who use illegal drugs from owning guns. That ruling stemmed from another case, involving a Mississippi man, Patrick D. Daniels, who was convicted after police found two guns during a traffic stop. Daniels admitted to using marijuana regularly but was not accused of driving under the influence.
“Our history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage,” the three-judge panel for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans wrote in the ruling.
RELATED: Target may be first big-box retailer to sell THC drinks
In its latest petition, the Trump administration argued that individuals could regain lawful gun ownership by abstaining from drug use for a period of time. The filing also asserted that the rules align with the Second Amendment because “habitual users” of controlled substances “pose a clear danger of misusing firearms.”
Hemani’s attorneys contend that the broadly written federal rules put millions of Americans at risk of technical violations, given how many have used cannabis at some point. The issue is further complicated by the patchwork of state laws; most have legalized cannabis in some form, even as it remains federally prohibited.
The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to clarify years of conflicting rulings among lower courts. However, a potential rescheduling of cannabis could add another wrinkle. If the plant moves to Schedule III, future disputes may hinge on how “unlawful user” is defined — and whether problematic consumption or cannabis-use disorder becomes a new legal standard.
*The Associated Press contributed to this report.
