The U.S. Supreme Court approved a Justice Department request for a further extension of a case relating to the federal prohibition against gun ownership by marijuana consumers.
After the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request last month to delay the case for more time, so that it can decide whether or not it will appeal the ruling of a lower-court, D. John Sauer asked, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed, to grant another extension of 28 days.
It is almost identical to the earlier government request. However, it does note how the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of Eighth Circuit “remanded this case,” and a district trial is scheduled to start on June 2nd. This would mean that the Supreme Court’s current deadline to file a petition of certiorari is “days” away.
Sauer filed a three page document stating that the Solicitor-General hasn’t yet decided whether or not to petition for certiorari. This application seeks additional time to allow for further consultation with the government, and also to evaluate the impact on the law and the practice of the decision of the court.
Keshon Baxter was a defendant in this case. He had a gun and marijuana bag. He was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits gun ownership by “unlawful” users of controlled substances.
Baxter claimed in district court the prohibition itself was illegal. He argued that both the wording of the law prohibiting drug users from possessing firearms and the ban imposed by the government on their possession was in violation of the Second Amendment.
The lower court rejected both arguments—a ruling Baxter appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit.
In a Feb. opinion, the Eighth Circuit upheld a portion of district court decision that denied Baxter’s claim of vagueness but overturned the lower court’s ruling regarding the constitutionality on the firearms prohibition. The judges found that the evidence was not sufficient to allow them to consider Baxter’s Second Amendment claim as applied.
The Eighth Circuit stated, however, that “we reverse the District Court’s decision on Baxter’s Second Amendment challenge as applied and remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”
Had the Supreme Court not granted the government’s extension requests in the case, U.S. v. BaxterThe decision on whether or not to appeal the Eighth Circuit’s ruling was due by May 6th. The administration will now have until July 3 to present its case under the extension that was approved most recently.
Sauer was appointed by President Donald Trump and officially assumed the role of solicitor general in early April. He had previously represented Trump’s landmark case regarding presidential immunity.
One risk to appealing the ruling is that if the Supreme Court does take the case, justices may in fact rule unfavorably to the government, possibly cementing that § 922(g)(3) is—in at least some cases—unconstitutional.
A number of federal courts in recent months 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.
—
MEDCAN24 has been tracking the hundreds of bills relating to cannabis, psychedelics or drug policies that have passed through state legislatures as well as Congress in this past year. Patreon members who pledge at least $25/month gain access to interactive maps, charts and a hearing calendar.
Find out more about our marijuana law tracker. To gain access, become a Patreon supporter.
—
Earlier this year, for example, 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.
In another recent case, an Eighth Circuit panel dismissed a three-year prison sentence against a person convicted for possession of a firearm while being an active user of marijuana. Judges in that case ruled that government’s prohibition on gun ownership by drug users is justified only in certain circumstances—not always.
Nowhere in our history does it say that we can disarm ourselves simply by saying so [the defendant] “Belongs to a group of people, drug-users, which Congress categorically declared dangerous,” the ruling stated.
In another case earlier this year, a Fifth Circuit panel ruled that the firearms ban was unconstitutional as applied to least one defendant. That ruling came on the heels of a string of other judicial decisions casting doubt on the legality of the ban.
A federal judge in El Paso, for instance, 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. This court then allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea and dismissed the charges.
Another panel of judges, on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, heard oral arguments in November in the government’s appeal of a district court ruling that deemed the gun ban unconstitutional.
The panel debated whether or not the case was about a challenge of the ban as applied, rather than a challenge on its face. As in previous cases, the judges focused on whether or no that defendant had been under the influence while possessing a gun.
In a separate federal court case, Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers recently made arguments that the ongoing firearm restriction for cannabis users is “analogous to laws disarming the intoxicated” and other historical laws “disarming many disparate groups that the government believed presented a danger with firearms.”
That brief was the latest response to a case filed by a Pennsylvania prosecutor who’s suing the federal government over its ban on gun ownership by cannabis users. It came two weeks after lawyers for the official, Warren County District Attorney Robert Greene, asked the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to allow the matter to proceed to trial.
In a number of the ongoing cases, DOJ has argued that the prohibition on gun ownership by marijuana users is also supported by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, U.S.The court ruled that the government can limit Second Amendment rights for people who have domestic violence restraining order.
DOJ has made such arguments, for example, in favor of the firearms ban in a case in a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The group, which includes Florida medical cannabis users, claims that the Second Amendment is being violated by the fact that it’s illegal to buy firearms as long as you are still using marijuana as medicine.
Under President Joe Biden, the DOJ has consistently claimed that patients with medical marijuana who own firearms are “a threat to public safety,” they “represent a higher risk of suicide,” and more likely commit crime “to finance their drug habit”.
The Trump administration has not yet decided how it will handle the case. At a NRA conference in 2023, Trump suggested there might be a link between the use of “genetically engineered” marijuana and mass shootings. Trump listed several controversial and unproven causes of the mass shootings that plague the United States. He said he’d direct the Food and Drug Administration to look into them.
We need to investigate whether common psychotropic drugs and genetically-engineered cannabis or other narcotics can cause “psychotic breaks” leading to violent gun attacks, said he.
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.
Hunter Biden, son of Vice President Joe Biden was found guilty by a Federal jury last year of violating the law by purchasing and possessing crack cocaine while using a firearm. Two Republican congressmen challenged the basis of that conviction, with one pointing out that there are “millions of marijuana users” who own guns but should not be prosecuted.
Medical marijuana patients, legislators, and advocacy organizations have all been confused by the situation. The National Rifle Association’s (NRA) lobbying arm said recently that the court rulings on the cannabis and guns issue have “led to a confusing regulatory landscape” that have impacted Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
The advocacy group said that marijuana use was no longer restricted to youth counterculture or indigenous religious practices. It now included a variety of people using it as a recreational or medicinal drug. The group said that many of these individuals were law abiding and productive community members who wanted to exercise the right to own and carry arms.
While some states passed legislation to further limit gun rights in marijuana-related situations, others attempted to maintain them. Recently, for example, 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.
Beshear told a press briefing that the best way to handle this issue was not to just focus on it, but change the marijuana schedule. What we must change is federal marijuana policy.
Kentucky Governor launches medical marijuana dispensary map ahead of market launch and waives patient renewal fees
MEDCAN24 would not be possible without the support of readers. Consider a Patreon subscription if our marijuana advocacy journalism is what you use to keep informed.
