The Justice Department has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to give it more time for submitting briefs on a recent case that the justices agreed to hear. This case concerns constitutionality of the federal law prohibiting gun ownership by marijuana users and others.
The DOJ stated that it was agreed by its lawyers and the attorneys representing the respondents in this case, that due to “the pressure of other cases” the deadlines for the submission of briefs and replies should be changed.
The Justice Department has been told that it must file its initial brief before the court no later than December 4. However, they are asking for an extension to December 12th. The deadline for the respondent to file a brief would be pushed to January 20, if this extension is granted.
The reply brief will be due by February 19, 2026 if the extension is granted. The United States and the other party have agreed to the briefing schedule. The motion was signed by D. John Sauer – a nominee of Donald Trump’s as Solicitor General.
Trump’s administration has argued repeatedly that the restriction on gun ownership for people who smoke cannabis, despite state laws, is “targeting a group of individuals who present a clear risk of misusing firearms” and must be maintained.
On Monday, after years of contradictory lower court decisions on similar cases, the justices finally granted cert in U.S. v. Hemani to settle the question of whether the ban—known as Section 922(g)(3)—is consistent with the Second Amendment.
Court justices have yet to make a final decision on several cases. However, the decision to decide on whether or not to hear the case is still up in air. Hemani This is especially welcome news for the Justice Department. It has consistently defended firearms prohibition, and requested specifically that SCOTUS examine that case rather than alternatives.
It could be because he’s not just a marijuana user, but a cocaine addict who has sold drugs previously. So it is possible that DOJ thought he was a more sympathetic figure for this issue. The defendants in other cases had only been found with a firearm as well as marijuana.
In June the solicitor general sent a submission to the Supreme Court stating that “Section 922.3) complies” with the Second Amendment, and “that the law targets an individual group who poses a very clear risk of misuse of firearms: the habitual user of illegal drugs.”
Sauer explained that “the law bars their possession of guns only temporarily but leaves it in their hands to lift this restriction at any point; anyone who stops using drugs habitually can resume owning firearms”.
The word “habitual”, which is mentioned 40 times by the government in its document, does not appear at 922(g). This statute states that anyone “who has a history of illegal drug use or addiction” is prohibited from buying or owning firearms and ammunition.
In a separate August filing for the case, the Justice Department also emphasized that “the question presented is the subject of a multi-sided and growing circuit conflict.” The solicitor general, in seeking cert from the court, also pointed out that the defendant was a dual American-Pakistani national with suspected ties to Iranian organizations hostile to the U.S. This put him on the FBI radar.
Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to take up HemaniThis could be a win for the government in other cases if 922 (g) (3) is declared constitutional. The High Court on Monday rejected a cert petition U.S. v. CooperWhile leaving decisions pending on U.S. Daniels You can also find out more about the following: U.S. v. Sam. Justices discussed all cases in a meeting behind closed doors last Friday.
The court also recently denied a petition for cert in another gun and marijuana case, U.S. v. Baxter, But that was not surprising, as the DOJ and defendants both advised against further pursuit of the case after the lower court reinstated the conviction of being an illegal user of controlled substances in possession of firearm.
A number of federal courts in recent years have cast doubt on the legality of § 922(g)(3), finding generally that while the ban on gun ownership among drug users may not be entirely unconstitutional, there’s scant historical precedent for such a broad restriction of Second Amendment rights on an entire a category of people.
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.
This case was remanded back to the lower court that determined the law prohibiting “illegal” marijuana users from owning firearms is in violation of 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.
According to the ruling, any restrictions must conform with the original historical context in which the Second Amendment was ratified back in 1791.
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.
Circuit court said, “The government must prove that non-intoxicated users of marijuana pose a future risk” in order to justify the 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.
In a recent ruling, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated a defendant’s conviction and remanded the case back to a district court, noting that a retrial before a jury may be necessary to determine whether cannabis in fact caused the defendant to be dangerous or pose a credible threat 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 the hearing calendar.
Find out more about the tracker of marijuana legislation and support us on Patreon for access.
—
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.
In the meantime, certain states have passed legislation that further restricts or attempts to preserve firearm rights in regards 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 state-legal marijuana patients, anyone who wants to be “in compliance” with federal law (and not in violation) must “make a decision” to get rid of these 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.
MEDCAN24 would not be possible without the support of readers. Please consider making a Patreon monthly pledge if you depend on our cannabis journalism for information.
