The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has outlined options for lawmakers responding to the Supreme Court's recent ruling on gun rights for marijuana users.
Last month the Court ruled unanimously in U.S. v. Hemani that prosecuting cannabis consumers under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) for possessing firearms violates the Second Amendment. The justices called the decision "narrow," and CRS said it "explicitly recognized room for legislative action in this area."
The majority opinion left open bans on firearm possession by drug addicts or intoxicated people, and didn't foreclose prosecutions backed by individualized proof that a person's drug use, or a drug's potency, makes them dangerous.
CRS said Congress "may accept this invitation to amend § 922(g)(3) if it chooses," such as narrowing it to only users posing demonstrated danger, or revisiting other categorical bans in § 922(g). Lawmakers could instead leave unresolved issues — including whether banning gun ownership by those "addicted to" drugs is constitutional — to lower courts, since related petitions are pending before the Court.
Courts have applied the Hemani ruling to other marijuana gun cases, and a poll found majority support for the decision across party lines. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which enforces § 922(g)(3), said it is "reviewing the decision and assessing its impact" and that "additional guidance will be provided soon."
The Hemani majority called the government's blanket ban "at odds with" the Trump administration's marijuana rescheduling move, writing the government could not treat "anyone who regularly uses marijuana" as "categorically violent and dangerous" based on its own "say-so" alone.
In May, ATF proposed revising Form 4473, the federal gun purchase form, to reflect marijuana's Schedule III status for state-licensed medical and FDA-approved products, a reclassification Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche ordered in April. ATF also proposed narrowing its "unlawful user" definition this year, taking comments through June 30.
At March oral arguments, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued marijuana users "pose a greater danger" than alcohol drinkers, comparing them to historical bans on the mentally ill and habitual drunkards — an analogy the Court rejected as failing "under every measure." DOJ also noted Hemani, a dual U.S.-Pakistani citizen, had alleged ties to Iranian entities hostile to the U.S.
Documents show Biden's DOJ privately flagged litigation risk over such cases in 2024 guidance later rescinded by the Trump DOJ. Sauer separately told the Court in April that marijuana's rescheduling should not affect its ruling in the case.
