Supreme Court Limits the Federal Gun Ban on Marijuana Users (Hemani, 2026)

On June 18, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that prosecuting a marijuana user for possessing a securely stored firearm, based on his drug use alone, violated the Second Amendment as applied to him. The decision is narrow, and 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) remains on the books.

Information last verified on June 23, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Status: Decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 18, 2026 (No. 24-1234). The ruling is as-applied and narrow; 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) remains in force and ATF Form 4473 still asks about unlawful drug use.

Jurisdiction scope: This article explains a federal Second Amendment ruling on 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), the federal statute barring an unlawful drug user from possessing firearms. State laws that legalize marijuana do not override federal firearms law, and this article is general information, not legal advice about any person's situation.

What Happened

On June 18, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234, holding that the federal government's prosecution of Ali Danial Hemani under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) was inconsistent with the Second Amendment as applied to him. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court.

The case arose in Texas, where Hemani lived in the Dallas area and was indicted in the Eastern District of Texas; firearm purchases there run through the same federal screening covered in our guide to Texas background check laws. According to the record described in the opinion and in reporting, federal agents searched the Hemani family home in 2022. Hemani cooperated, surrendered a firearm he kept in the house, pointed agents to marijuana on the property, and during an interview told agents he used marijuana about every other day. More than six months later, relying on his admitted marijuana use, the government charged him under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), the provision that bars an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" from possessing a firearm.

The Court held that this prosecution, resting on marijuana use alone, could not stand under the Second Amendment. The opinion applied the two-step framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) and United States v. Rahimi (2024): because the Second Amendment's text presumptively protects keeping a firearm in the home, the government bore the burden of showing its regulation is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Court concluded the government failed to carry that burden on the facts presented.

Central to the reasoning was the government's reliance on founding-era "habitual drunkard" laws. The Court explained that a habitual drunkard, at the founding and for decades after, was not merely a frequent drinker but a person whose intoxication left him persistently incapacitated and unable to manage his affairs. Early Americans drank heavily, yet those laws reached only the incapacitated. According to reporting on the opinion, the Court reasoned that the historical analogues the government cited targeted different kinds of people, for different reasons, and operated in different ways than a rule disarming anyone who uses marijuana every other day. The Court declined to accept that everyone who regularly uses marijuana is categorically violent or dangerous on the government's say-so, and it warned that such a broad power to designate groups as dangerous could come to swallow the Second Amendment.

The ruling was unanimous in result but fractured in reasoning. Justice Gorsuch's opinion of the Court was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, and Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Sotomayor joined. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring only in the judgment, joined by Justice Kagan; per reporting, their narrower approach rested on the point that the government knew only that Hemani used marijuana about every other day, which did not match the persistent incapacitation that historical habitual-drunkard laws targeted. All nine Justices agreed Hemani's prosecution was unconstitutional, but they did not all sign a single rationale.

The Court was careful to mark the limits of its decision. It said it did not address efforts to disarm people who are presently intoxicated, did not address other prophylactic laws Congress might adopt after finding that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing firearms, and did not even decide whether the government could bring a 922(g)(3) prosecution accompanied by individualized proof that a defendant's drug use makes him a danger to himself or others. That door was left open.

What the Law Actually Says

The statute at the center of the case is 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3). It makes it unlawful for any person "who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" to ship, transport, possess, or receive a firearm or ammunition that has traveled in interstate commerce. A companion provision, 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(3), makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise transfer a firearm to someone the seller knows or has reasonable cause to believe is an unlawful drug user or addict.

These provisions feed directly into the firearm purchase process. When a person buys a gun from a licensed dealer, they complete ATF Form 4473, the Firearms Transaction Record. That form asks whether the buyer is "an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance." Answering falsely is itself a federal offense. As of June 23, 2026, that question remains on Form 4473, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has signaled it is reviewing the decision and will issue updated guidance, but the form and the statute have not been rewritten by the ruling itself.

A recurring source of confusion is the conflict between federal and state marijuana law. Marijuana remains a controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act, and federal firearms law applies nationwide. That means a person can use marijuana lawfully under the laws of their state, including under a medical card, and still be an "unlawful user" for purposes of federal 922(g)(3). The Hemani ruling did not change that conflict; it addressed only whether one specific prosecution, built on marijuana use alone, survived Second Amendment scrutiny. For context on how drug and criminal history surface in firearm and employment screening, see our guide to background check laws by state.

The decision sits within the modern Second Amendment framework. Under Bruen, courts first ask whether the Amendment's plain text covers a person's conduct; if it does, the government must justify its regulation by pointing to a historical tradition of comparable firearm regulation. Rahimi clarified that the analogy need not be a historical twin, but the modern law must be "relevantly similar" to founding-era regulation in why and how it burdens the right. Hemani applied that test and found the government's drug-user theory, as presented, did not fit the historical tradition it invoked.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

The most important thing to understand about Hemani is what it did not do. It did not strike down 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), and it did not legalize firearm possession for everyone who uses a controlled substance. The Court resolved the case on an as-applied basis, meaning it held the statute unconstitutional in this prosecution, against this defendant, on these facts. The statute remains a valid federal law that other courts will continue to apply.

The reasoning matters as much as the result. By rejecting the government's "any drug user is dangerous" theory while expressly preserving prosecutions backed by individualized proof of present dangerousness, the Court shifted the question from status to conduct. The government's automatic, categorical approach, disarm anyone who admits regular marijuana use, is what failed. A case in which the government shows that a particular person's drug use makes them a present danger was left for another day. That distinction is the practical core of the decision.

It is also worth being honest about the splintered reasoning. Seven Justices joined Justice Gorsuch's opinion, while Justice Alito, joined by Justice Kagan, would have reached the same result on narrower historical grounds, and Justices Thomas and Jackson wrote separately. Unanimity in judgment with multiple separate writings often signals that the broader doctrinal questions, how far Bruen and Rahimi reach, remain genuinely unsettled. We are not predicting how lower courts will read the opinion or how future cases will come out; the durable point is that the categorical theory lost and the dangerousness path was preserved.

Finally, the gap between the ruling and the paperwork is real. The statute is unchanged on its face, Form 4473 still asks about unlawful drug use, and the federal-versus-state marijuana conflict persists. Anyone trying to understand how a record or a drug-use history interacts with firearm eligibility should treat this as a narrow constitutional ruling, not a rewrite of the federal code. For how long a serious conviction can shadow that analysis, see how long a felony stays on your record, and for whether a record can be cleared, our overview of expungement laws by state.

How This Affects You

This section is general information only. The Hemani decision did not erase the federal ban on firearm possession by unlawful drug users. 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) is still law, and the Court was explicit that its holding was as-applied and narrow.

The ATF Form 4473 question about unlawful drug use still applies, and answering it falsely remains a federal crime. As of June 23, 2026, the form has not been changed, and ATF has said it is reviewing the decision before issuing further guidance.

Federal firearms law still controls regardless of your state's marijuana laws. Using marijuana lawfully under state law, including with a medical card, does not by itself remove you from the reach of federal 922(g)(3), because marijuana remains a federally controlled substance.

Courts may still allow a prosecution under 922(g)(3) where the government offers individualized proof that a particular person's drug use makes them presently dangerous. The Court left that question open rather than foreclosing it. Nothing here tells any reader that they personally may now buy or possess a firearm. Whether the law applies to a specific person depends on facts and circumstances that only a lawyer reviewing that person's situation can assess.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It explains a federal Second Amendment ruling on 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) and reflects sources verified on June 23, 2026. Federal firearms law is complex, the ATF's guidance is still developing, and you should consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation before relying on this decision.

Sources

• Supreme Court of the United States, United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234, slip opinion (June 18, 2026): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1234_g2bh.pdf
• Supreme Court of the United States, docket for No. 24-1234 (United States v. Hemani): https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1234.html
• Legal Information Institute, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) (Cornell Law School): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
• ATF, Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/form-4473-firearms-transaction-record/download
• SCOTUSblog, Court sides with challenger to law banning drug users from possessing guns (corroboration): https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/court-sides-with-challenger-to-law-banning-drug-users-from-possessing-guns/
• NPR, Supreme Court sides with a marijuana user who was barred from owning guns (corroboration): https://www.npr.org/2026/06/18/nx-s1-5835232/supreme-court-marijuana-guns

Related articles

• background check laws by state
• how long a felony stays on your record
• expungement laws by state
• Texas background check laws

---

Last updated: 2026-06-23. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-06-23.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a marijuana user own a gun after Hemani?

Not as a blanket rule. The Court held only that prosecuting Ali Hemani under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) based on his marijuana use alone violated the Second Amendment as applied to him. The statute was not struck down, and the Court left open prosecutions backed by individualized proof that a person's drug use makes them presently dangerous. This is general information, not advice about any individual.

Did the Supreme Court strike down 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3)?

No. The June 18, 2026 ruling in United States v. Hemani (No. 24-1234) was as-applied and narrow. The Court found the statute unconstitutional in this specific prosecution but did not invalidate 922(g)(3), which remains a valid federal law that other courts continue to apply.

Does Hemani change ATF Form 4473?

Not by itself. As of June 23, 2026, Form 4473 still asks whether the buyer is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or another controlled substance, and answering falsely remains a federal offense. ATF has said it is reviewing the decision and will issue updated guidance, but the form has not been rewritten.

Who wrote the opinion and what was the vote?

Justice Gorsuch wrote the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. The result was unanimous in judgment, but the reasoning was splintered: Justice Alito concurred only in the judgment, joined by Justice Kagan, and Justices Thomas and Jackson (joined by Sotomayor) filed separate concurrences.

Does my state's marijuana legalization protect my gun rights under federal law?

No. Marijuana remains a controlled substance under federal law, and federal firearms law applies nationwide. Using marijuana lawfully under state law, including with a medical card, can still make a person an 'unlawful user' for purposes of federal 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3). Hemani did not change that conflict.

What did the Court say about 'habitual drunkard' laws?

The Court distinguished founding-era habitual-drunkard laws, explaining that a habitual drunkard then was someone whose intoxication left him persistently incapacitated, not merely a frequent drinker. It found those laws did not support disarming someone based only on regular marijuana use, because they targeted different people, for different reasons, in different ways.

Can the government still prosecute drug users under 922(g)(3)?

In some circumstances, yes. The Court expressly left open whether the government could bring a 922(g)(3) prosecution with individualized proof that a defendant's drug use renders him a danger to himself or others, and it did not address people who are presently intoxicated. The categorical theory failed; the dangerousness path was preserved.