Supreme Court strikes down lifetime gun ban for marijuana users

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Hemani that a lifetime firearms ban for marijuana users is unconstitutional, handing a win to Second Amendment advocates. The decision affirms the Fifth Circuit and could affect gun-rights restrictions for millions of Americans in states where marijuana use is legal or tolerated. Why it matters: - The ruling removes a broad federal firearms restriction tied to marijuana use. - Second Amendment advocates say the decision protects law-abiding gun owners who use marijuana, including for medical reasons. - The Court’s decision could affect millions of Americans in states where marijuana is legal to some extent. What happened: - The U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States v. Hemani (No. 24–1234) on June 18, 2026. - The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that the lifetime ban for marijuana users is unconstitutional. - The case challenged the federal ban on firearms possession by marijuana users. - The Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief supporting Hemani. - SAF was joined in the filing by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, and Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus. The details: - SAF argued that firearm possession by marijuana users affects millions of law-abiding Americans who could lose Second Amendment rights for using a substance that is state-legal in many places. - Marijuana is currently legal to various extent in 40 states. - SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said there is no historical tradition of permanently disarming law-abiding citizens who use marijuana. - Kraut said founding-era laws addressed intoxication through temporary restrictions, not a lifetime ban. - SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said the proper understanding of the Second Amendment allows disarming only those who are actually dangerous. - Gottlieb said marijuana use alone was insufficient to show Hemani was dangerous enough to justify permanently ending his rights. - The release said the Court struck down Hemani’s unconstitutional conviction. Between the lines: - The decision appears to narrow the government’s ability to rely on drug-use status alone to justify permanent firearms disqualification. - The ruling also reflects a broader originalist reading of the Second Amendment, centered on historical tradition and dangerousness. - For gun-rights groups, the case is a test of whether modern drug laws can support lifetime restrictions that did not exist at the founding. What’s next: - The ruling is expected to be cited in future Second Amendment challenges to status-based firearm bans. - Gun-rights groups are likely to use the decision to push back on other permanent disqualification rules tied to nonviolent conduct. - The practical impact will depend on how lower courts apply the Supreme Court’s reasoning in later cases. The bottom line: - The Supreme Court has turned back a lifetime firearms ban tied only to marijuana use, marking a major win for Second Amendment advocates.**