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

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday for a Texas marijuana user who challenged the federal ban on gun possession by unlawful drug users, narrowing how the government can apply the law without striking it down.

The decision came in the case of Ali Danial Hemani and focused on 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), the federal statute that bars firearm possession by anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. The justices rejected the government's broad theory that all unlawful drug users may be disarmed categorically.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the Court, according to multiple reports. The ruling adds to a recent run of Second Amendment decisions in which the justices have demanded a stronger historical basis for modern gun restrictions.

What the Court decided

The Court sided with Hemani but stopped short of invalidating the statute altogether. Instead, it narrowed how broadly federal prosecutors can rely on 922(g)(3) when the only basis for disarmament is a person's status as an unlawful drug user.

Reports said the decision leaves room for narrower applications of the law, including situations involving addiction or intoxication. That means the ruling undercuts a blanket ban, but it does not end every prosecution under the statute.

The practical effect is significant for cases involving marijuana users who possess firearms. Federal authorities can still try to enforce the law in some circumstances, but they can no longer treat all unlawful drug users as disqualified from gun possession in the same way.

The case against Hemani

Hemani challenged the federal law after the government sought to apply it to him as a marijuana user. The key question was whether that status alone was enough to justify disarming him.

According to AP's report, Hemani was not charged with other crimes and was not accused of using the weapon while under the influence. That detail mattered because the government's theory was broad enough to cover ordinary unlawful drug users even without evidence of contemporaneous intoxication or violent conduct.

The administration argued for a categorical reading of the statute. The Court rejected that approach.

The legal background

The dispute sits within the Supreme Court's broader Second Amendment framework, which increasingly turns on history and tradition. Under that approach, the government must show that modern firearm restrictions resemble historically accepted limits.

Here, the justices concluded that the federal government could not simply treat all unlawful drug users as a class that may be disarmed. The decision narrows the government's power to use 922(g)(3) as a broad status-based prohibition.

The ruling does not resolve every question about when a person's drug use becomes relevant to firearm possession. It leaves open the harder line-drawing problems around dangerousness, addiction and intoxication.

How the case reached the Court

The United States asked the Supreme Court to review the case in 2025 after the Fifth Circuit ruled in Hemani's favor. The justices heard argument on March 2, 2026.

AP first reported the unanimous ruling on June 18, 2026. Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian and the New York Post later reported similar details, including that the decision narrowed but did not void the statute.

The timing matters because the ruling comes at a moment when federal firearm restrictions tied to drug use have become a recurring issue in lower courts and in public debate.

Why it matters

The ruling affects future prosecutions under 922(g)(3), a statute the government has used against unlawful drug users in firearm cases. Prosecutors will now have a harder time relying on broad status alone.

It also complicates how authorities may handle marijuana users who possess guns, especially where there is no evidence that the person was intoxicated at the time or otherwise posed an immediate danger.

The decision may also affect pending or past cases that relied on the same statute, including the high-profile Hunter Biden prosecution that has been referenced in coverage of the law.

What happens next

The full opinion will matter because it should spell out the limiting standard lower courts must apply. For now, the broad outline is clear: the ban is narrowed, not erased.

Lower courts will have to decide how to evaluate dangerousness, addiction and intoxication under the statute. That will likely produce more litigation before the rule settles.

The Justice Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives may also face pressure to clarify how they will approach future cases under 922(g)(3).

Gun-rights advocates, gun-safety groups and cannabis advocates are likely to argue over how far the ruling reaches. But the immediate bottom line is unchanged: the Supreme Court limited a federal gun-disqualification regime for unlawful drug users and refused to uphold it as a blanket ban.