DOJ Urges SCOTUS to Ban Cannabis Consumers from Owning Guns

WASHINGTON, D.C. –The U.S. Department of Justice is strongly urging the Supreme Court to uphold a federal rule that bars Cannabis consumers from legally owning or purchasing firearms.

In a brief filed with the Court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues that banning Cannabis users from gun ownership is consistent with American history. The DOJ claims the policy fits within a tradition of disarming groups considered risky, comparing Cannabis consumers to “habitual drunkards” in earlier centuries.

The case, United States v. Hemani, comes after the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal government cannot automatically strip someone of their Second Amendment rights simply because they have used Cannabis. The appeals court said a blanket ban on anyone with any history of Cannabis use is unconstitutional.

Essentially, the Justice Department is now asking the Supreme Court to reverse that ruling.On March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in United States v. Hemani, a case questioning whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment rights of cannabis users

The dispute centers on a 1968 federal law that prohibits “unlawful users” of controlled substances from possessing firearms. Because Cannabis remains illegal under federal law, federal agencies have interpreted that language broadly. In practice, that means someone can lose their gun rights based solely on Cannabis use — even if they are not intoxicated, not addicted, and have no history of violent behavior.

Opposing the government’s position is NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, a nonprofit advocacy group founded in 1970 that works to change Cannabis laws and protect the rights of Cannabis consumers. NORML filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the justices to strike down the federal ban.

In its filing, NORML argues that for much of American history, people cultivated and consumed Cannabis without losing their firearms rights. The group says historical firearm restrictions focused on people who were actively intoxicated or legally deemed dangerous — not broad categories of citizens who used a particular substance.

Adding another twist, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has recently proposed narrowing how it defines an “unlawful user.” Under the proposed rule, prosecutors would need to show evidence of regular or compulsive drug use over time before restricting someone’s Second Amendment rights. That would limit the government’s current wide interpretation but would not eliminate the federal ban.

The Supreme Court’s decision could affect millions of Americans who legally consume Cannabis under state law but remain in violation of federal law. The justices must now decide whether the federal government can categorically deny those individuals the right to own firearms — or whether such a sweeping ban violates the Constitution.