Supreme Court denies one case on gun rights for marijuana consumers, but justices will discuss several others this week

The U.S. Supreme Court has narrowed its list of pending cases concerning the federal ban on gun ownership by people who use marijuana, with justices declining to take up one of about a half dozen—with the others now set to be discussed by the justices at a closed-door meeting on Friday.

The court rejected a cert petition on Tuesday. U.S. v. BaxterThe challenge is to Section 922g(3) of federal statute. This is not all that surprising as the Justice Department along with Keshon David Baxter – the person being charged in the case – both advised him to refrain from further litigation after a lower judge reinstated his conviction. The case had been remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Advocates are also closely following a number of related court cases that contest the constitutionality and the Second Amendment of the ban on guns for marijuana consumers.

DOJ specifically requested that justices take one particular case on this issue, while holding others back for future action. The case in question, U.S. v. Hemani, The case involves someone who was convicted of having a firearm, while also using marijuana and cocaine. They were also involved in the sale of illicit drugs. The government would win this case because it involves drugs other than marijuana.

In a meeting held behind closed doors last week, it was planned to discuss the many pending cases. Although it’s not clear if this happened, the dockets of the remaining cases indicate the justices plan to review them on Friday.

Hemani is not the only case that has been pending in relation to marijuana and gun rights. U.S. v. Cooper, U.S. Daniels You can also find out more about the following: U.S. v. Sam.

Meanwhile, in recent interviews with MEDCAN24, several Republican senators shared their views on the federal ban on gun possession by people who use marijuana—with one saying that if alcohol drinkers can lawfully buy and use firearms, the same standard should apply to cannabis consumers.

Separately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit last month sided with a federal district court that dismissed an indictment against Jared Michael Harrison, who was charged in Oklahoma in 2022 after police discovered cannabis and a handgun in his vehicle during a traffic stop.

Now, the case is being remanded by the court to which it was originally referred. The lower court determined that current law that prohibits “illegal marijuana” users from having firearms infringes on the Second Amendment of Constitution.

The lower court largely based his initial decision on an interpretation of a Supreme Court ruling in which the justices generally created a higher standard for policies that seek to impose restrictions on gun rights.

This ruling says that such restrictions should be in line with the context of 1791’s original ratification.

In order to prove that this ban was consistent, the Justice Department referred to old case laws that prohibited Catholics, Loyalists, Slave Indians, and loyalists from owning guns.

According to the circuit court’s ruling, “the Government must prove that marijuana users who are not intoxicated pose a danger for future harm” before it can support its current policy. This inquiry is better suited to the district courts, as it may require fact-finding.

Meanwhile, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District, judges recently ruled in favor of medical cannabis patients who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights to possess firearms.

As a recent report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) explained the current legal landscape, a growing number of federal courts are now “finding constitutional problems in the application of at least some parts” of the firearms prohibition.

A recent decision by a panel of three judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit vacated a convicted defendant and remanded back the case to a District Court, noting that a retrial in front of a jury could be required to determine if cannabis actually caused the defendant to pose a threat or be dangerous to others.

The Third Circuit separately said in a published opinion that district courts must make “individualized judgments” to determine whether 922(g)(3) is constitutional as applied to particular defendants.

—
MEDCAN24 tracks hundreds of marijuana, psychedelics, and drug policy legislation in state legislatures this year. Patreon members who pledge at least $25/month gain access to interactive maps, charts, and hearing schedules so that they do not miss anything.

Find out more about our marijuana law tracker. To gain access, become a Patreon supporter.
—

Earlier this year, a federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that the ban was unconstitutional as applied to two defendants, writing that the government failed to establish that the “sweeping” prohibition against gun ownership by marijuana users was grounded in historical precedent.

A federal judge in El Paso separately ruled late last year that the government’s ongoing ban on gun ownership by habitual marijuana users is unconstitutional in the case of a defendant who earlier pleaded guilty to the criminal charge. The man was allowed to withdraw his plea, and the court ordered the dismissal of the criminal charges against him.

DOJ has claimed in multiple federal cases over the past several years that the statute banning cannabis consumers from owning or possessing guns is constitutional because it’s consistent with the nation’s history of disarming “dangerous” individuals.

The Justice Department, in 2023, told the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit, that precedents “comfortably support” the ban. Cannabis consumers with guns pose a unique danger to society, the Biden administration claimed, in part because they’re “unlikely” to store their weapon properly.

Some states, however, have passed laws that either restrict gun rights or attempt to protect them in relation to marijuana.

Recently a Pennsylvania lawmaker introduced a bill meant to remove state barriers to medical marijuana patients carrying firearms.

Colorado activists also attempted to qualify an initiative for November’s ballot that would have protected the Second Amendment rights of marijuana consumers in that state, but the campaign’s signature-gathering drive ultimately fell short.

As 2024 drew to a close, the ATF issued a warning to Kentucky residents that, if they choose to participate in the state’s medical marijuana program that’s set to launch imminently, they will be prohibited from buying or possessing firearms under federal law.

According to the official, while those with guns aren’t expected to give them up if they decide to become a state-legal marijuana patient, anyone who wants to adhere to federal law without violating it must “decide” to get rid of firearms.

Since then, bipartisan state lawmakers have introduced legislation that would urge Kentucky’s representatives in Congress to amend federal law to clarify that users of medical marijuana may legally possess firearms, though no action has since been taken on that bill.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) said in January that he supported the legislature’s effort to urge the state’s congressional delegation to call for federal reforms to protect the Second Amendment rights of medical marijuana patients, but the governor added that he’d like to see even more sweeping change on the federal level.