Supreme Court sides with Texas marijuana user who wants to own a firearm

The Supreme Court on June 18 ruled for a Texas marijuana user who challenged the federal ban on gun possession by unlawful drug users, narrowing how far the government can go under the law without striking it down outright.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for a unanimous court in the case of Ali Danial Hemani. The decision rejected a blanket reading of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), the federal law that bars firearm possession by an unlawful user of or person addicted to a controlled substance.

The ruling is likely to affect how prosecutors use the statute in future cases, especially when the government relies on drug-use status alone. It also adds to the court's recent Second Amendment decisions, which have continued to define the limits of firearm restrictions.

What the court decided

The justices did not invalidate 922(g)(3) entirely. Instead, they held that the government had not justified applying the law as a broad ban in Hemani's case.

Reporting reviewed for this story says the decision still leaves room for narrower restrictions, including rules aimed at people who are intoxicated or otherwise unusually dangerous. That distinction could matter in future prosecutions and constitutional challenges.

The ruling matters because it narrows a status-based theory the government has used in firearm cases. It does not end federal enforcement against drug users, but it does make a sweeping, across-the-board approach harder to defend.

How the case reached the court

Hemani, a Texas man who uses marijuana, challenged the federal law after lower-court litigation over whether the ban could be applied consistently with the Second Amendment.

The case reached the Supreme Court amid continuing conflict over how gun laws interact with cannabis use. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, but state-level legalization has made the federal gun ban harder to apply cleanly in some cases.

The court issued its ruling on June 18, 2026. AP first reported the decision at about 14:08 UTC, and other major outlets followed the same day.

What it means now

The immediate practical effect is that prosecutors may face a narrower path when charging unlawful drug users under 922(g)(3), especially where they cannot tie the case to intoxication or another individualized danger.

Defendants in pending gun cases are likely to cite the ruling quickly. The decision could also influence challenges to other firearm restrictions that depend on drug use or intoxication status.

The Justice Department has not yet publicly revised its approach in the material reviewed for this article. That leaves open how aggressively federal prosecutors will continue to enforce the statute in marijuana-related cases.

What comes next

The next questions are how lower courts interpret the opinion, whether the Justice Department changes charging guidance, and whether any concurring opinions sharpen the limits of the ruling once the full text is read closely.

For now, the court has drawn a line against a sweeping drug-user gun ban while preserving room for narrower restrictions tied to intoxication or unusual danger.

,