Supreme Court sides with Texas marijuana user in ruling narrowing federal gun ban

The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously sided with a Texas marijuana user in a ruling that narrows how the federal government can use a law barring unlawful drug users from possessing firearms.

The decision is a setback for the Trump administration and adds to a series of recent Supreme Court rulings that have expanded gun rights under the Second Amendment.

The case centered on 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), the federal provision that bars gun possession by anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. The justices said the statute is too broad to be used as a blanket ban against all illegal drug users.

Ali Danial Hemani, the Texas man at the center of the case, challenged the law after federal prosecutors treated his marijuana use as enough to disqualify him from owning a gun. According to the reporting, he was not accused of any other crimes or of using a firearm while intoxicated.

AP first reported the ruling at 14:08 UTC, and later coverage from the Wall Street Journal and The Guardian confirmed that the court issued a 9-0 decision for Hemani.

The case and the law

The dispute grew out of a clash between federal drug law and state-level marijuana policy. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, but many states have legalized or decriminalized it, creating recurring conflicts over whether regular cannabis use alone can trigger firearms bans.

The case reached the Supreme Court after lower courts had sided with Hemani, according to background reporting. The justices heard arguments in March 2026 before issuing the ruling on June 18, 2026.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court, according to reporting on the opinion, and said the statute is not narrowly written enough to cover only people who are categorically and unusually dangerous.

That distinction matters because the court did not erase every firearms restriction connected to drug use. Instead, it rejected the government’s attempt to apply this particular law as a broad, classwide prohibition.

What the ruling changes

The immediate effect is to narrow federal prosecutions that rely on 922(g)(3) against marijuana users and other people covered by the statute. Prosecutors will likely have less room to argue that drug use alone is enough to justify disarmament.

The opinion leaves open the possibility that narrower restrictions could still survive, including limits tied to intoxication, addiction, or the use of especially dangerous drugs.

That leaves an important question for future cases: how far can Congress go in regulating gun possession by people who use controlled substances without running afoul of the court’s current Second Amendment approach?

The ruling also adds to a recent run of Supreme Court decisions expanding gun rights. AP described Thursday’s decision as part of that broader trend.

The same federal provision was previously used in the Hunter Biden case, making 922(g)(3) one of the more closely watched gun laws in the country. AP noted that Biden was later pardoned by President Joe Biden.

What happens next

The decision resolves Hemani’s case in his favor, but it does not end the legal debate over guns and marijuana. Lower courts will now have to apply the ruling to pending and future cases, including cases involving habitual marijuana use and other controlled substances.

The Trump administration defended the federal ban before the Supreme Court, so the ruling is also a clear loss for that position. The reporting available so far does not include a formal response from the Justice Department or the White House.

More broadly, the opinion is likely to shape how prosecutors charge firearm cases involving drug users and how defense lawyers challenge them. It also leaves open how much room remains for narrower public-safety restrictions that are tied to intoxication or addiction rather than a blanket rule.

For now, the court has drawn a line against treating all unlawful drug users as a single class of people who can be disarmed under 922(g)(3). The full reach of that line will be tested in later cases.