The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in a closely watched case at the intersection of gun rights and drug law that could narrow the reach of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
At issue is a federal statute that bars people who are “unlawful users of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing firearms. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug under federal law, even though some form of it is legal in 40 states. The Justice Department defended the statute, saying possession of a firearm by someone who uses marijuana can be punished by up to 15 years in prison. (The Trump administration has at times signaled interest in reclassifying marijuana, but the federal prohibition remains in force.)
The case comes after the court’s 2022 Bruen decision, which requires modern gun rules to be supported by historical analogues from the nation’s founding era. Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris told the justices the ban on firearm possession by unlawful drug users is analogous to early American laws that disarmed “habitual drunkards.”
But several justices pressed skeptical questions. Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that many founding-era leaders regularly drank alcohol and asked whether that history truly supports treating casual or infrequent marijuana users as permanently disarmed. He pressed on whether someone who uses marijuana every other day—or who takes an occasional edible—should automatically lose the right to possess a firearm.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson used the argument to highlight a broader problem: she said the Bruen test is hard to administer, because it appears to limit modern lawmakers to the judgments made by founding-era legislatures about who is dangerous and who can be disarmed.
Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that many of today’s commonly abused drugs—heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl—did not exist at the time of the founding, and that marijuana itself did not become widely used until the 20th century. That gap, he suggested, complicates any effort to infer the framers’ views about drug use and firearms.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett described herself as “stuck,” saying the record provided little evidence that the specific defendant’s marijuana use created a risk of violence or justified depriving him of a legally purchased gun. She listed a number of legal prescription and over-the-counter substances—dextromethorphan, zolpidem (Ambien), codeine-containing medicines, testosterone, and stimulants such as Adderall—and questioned whether their use obviously indicates violent risk.
The defendant’s attorney, Erin Murphy, urged the court to narrow the statute so it would not sweep in nonviolent or occasional users. Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back, warning that leaving these judgments mainly to courts could create a patchwork of decisions and undercut the role of Congress and the executive branch in setting drug and gun policy.
Justice Elena Kagan raised a hypothetical about a powerful hallucinogen such as ayahuasca, asking whether Congress might reasonably conclude that intense intoxication from such a substance would make firearm possession particularly dangerous—a question that drew a brief moment of levity when Justice Barrett asked if the drug was real and laughter followed.
The case involves Ali Danial Hemani. Federal agents searching the home he shared with his parents found a legally purchased handgun, and Hemani told FBI agents he used marijuana every other day. He was charged under the 1968 law banning firearm possession by unlawful users of controlled substances. A federal appeals court in the Fifth Circuit later threw out the charges, finding the statute unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, and the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling.
A decision in the case is expected by summer. The ruling could have wide implications for how the government regulates firearm possession by people who use drugs and for the reach of modern gun laws under the Bruen standard.