Second Amendment

Supreme Court Makes It Clear There Is No Drug Exception to the Second Amendment

The unanimous decision upholding the gun rights of cannabis consumers is striking given the Supreme Court's long history of accommodating the war on drugs.

Jacob Sullum | 6.18.2026 4:20 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google

Media Contact & Reprint Requests

(Adani Samat/Midjourney)

The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that the government may not strip people of their Second Amendment rights or prosecute them for illegal gun possession simply because they are marijuana users. In United States v. Hemani, the Court held that neither policy is "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation," the constitutional test established by its 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Given the tenor of questions during oral argument in March, the result is not surprising. But the fact that the justices all agreed the government had failed to meet the Bruen test underlines the weakness of the Trump administration's argument in favor of disarming cannabis consumers, which relied on a plainly inapt analogy to the historical treatment of "habitual drunkards." The decision also reflects the blatant illogic of 18 USC 922(g)(3), which makes it a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, for an "unlawful user" of "any controlled substance" to receive or possess a firearm.

The consensus is nevertheless striking given the Supreme Court's history of facilitating the war on drugs by whittling away at constitutional restraints on searches and seizures. The Court's deference to drug warriors has been so extensive that critics have long perceived a "drug exception" to the Fourth Amendment. But in Hemani, the Court makes it clear there is no drug exception to the Second Amendment.

The case involved Ali Hemani, a Texas man who was charged with violating Section 922(g)(3) based on two facts: He owned a pistol, and he admitted to using marijuana a few times a week. Although that would have been enough to convict him, the case never went to trial. A federal judge dismissed the charge on Second Amendment grounds in February 2024, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld that decision in January 2025.

That result, the 5th Circuit said, was consistent with its August 2024 ruling in United States v. Connelly, which held that the Second Amendment bars Section 922(g)(3) prosecutions when they are based on nothing more than the elements specified in the statute. The Trump administration, despite its avowed commitment to "protecting Second Amendment rights," asked the Supreme Court to reject the 5th Circuit's reasoning in Connelly and reinstate the charge against Hemani.

The government's lawyers may have........

© Reason.com