Two of the Supreme Court's conservative justices pressed the federal government Monday to explain why a person who smokes marijuana a few times a week should automatically lose the right to keep and bear arms. The questions from Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch signal that the government may be fighting an uphill battle in United States v. Hemani, and that the Second Amendment's reach could extend further than federal prosecutors would like.
The case centers on Ali Danial Hemani, a Texas man who argued he shouldn't have been charged with a crime for owning a gun while smoking marijuana a few times a week. The Trump administration asked the Court to revive the criminal case against him under a federal law that bars all illegal drug users from possessing firearms. According to Newsweek, a majority of the justices appeared to lean toward a narrow ruling in Hemani's favor.
Barrett went straight to the evidentiary core of the government's position:
"What is the government's evidence that using marijuana a couple of times a week makes someone dangerous?"
It's a deceptively simple question, and the kind that tends to unravel broad government arguments. The law doesn't distinguish between a cartel drug runner and a guy in Texas who takes a gummy before bed. It treats them identically for purposes of stripping a constitutional right. Barrett's question forced the government to defend that conflation.
Gorsuch, meanwhile, zeroed in on the legal absurdity of marijuana's status in 2025 America:
"What do we do with the fact that marijuana is sort of illegal and sort of isn't and that the federal government itself is conflicted on this?"
He's right. Marijuana sits in a bizarre legal limbo, banned under federal law, yet legal in a growing number of states. The federal government itself has been inconsistent in its enforcement posture for years. Building a felony prosecution on a substance the government can't decide how to classify is a shaky foundation.
The case has produced one of the more unusual coalitions in recent memory. The ACLU and the NRA are both supporting Hemani's position. Everytown, the gun control group, opposes it.
When the ACLU and the NRA agree on a Second Amendment case, it's worth paying attention. ACLU national legal director Cecillia Wang put the stakes plainly:
"Anyone one of them who also owns a gun for self defense could be charged with a felony. This law violates the Second Amendment and puts far too much power in the hands of federal prosecutors, with the risk of arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement."
That last phrase, "arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement", is the real danger. A law this broad doesn't just threaten marijuana users. It hands federal prosecutors enormous discretion to decide who gets charged and who doesn't. Millions of Americans use marijuana in states where it's legal. Any one of them who also keeps a firearm for self-defense is, technically, a federal felon waiting to be noticed.
That's not law enforcement. That's selective prosecution waiting to happen.
Chief Justice John Roberts appeared more sympathetic to the government's position, cautioning against what he saw as judicial overreach into legislative territory:
"It just seems to me that this takes a fairly cavalier approach to the necessary consideration of expertise and the judgments we leave to Congress and the executive branch."
Roberts's concern about deference to Congress is consistent with his broader judicial philosophy. But deference has limits, especially when a constitutional right is at stake. Congress doesn't get a blank check to strip Second Amendment protections from citizens engaged in conduct the government itself can't coherently regulate. The whole point of constitutional review is to check legislative overreach, not rubber-stamp it.
Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued the law is a reasonable measure to keep firearms away from potentially dangerous people. Hemani's attorney, Erin Murphy, countered that many cannabis users take gummies as sleep aids and are perfectly capable of making safe decisions about firearms.
The conservative position here isn't complicated. The Second Amendment protects an individual right. The government bears the burden of justifying restrictions on that right, not with vague appeals to "potential dangerousness," but with actual evidence. Barrett's question cut to exactly that point. If the government can't demonstrate that casual marijuana use makes someone dangerous, the constitutional basis for the prohibition crumbles.
This isn't about endorsing drug use. It's about whether the federal government can strip a constitutional right from millions of Americans based on conduct that a growing number of states have legalized and that the federal government itself treats with profound ambivalence. The answer should be no.
The Court's 6-3 conservative majority will decide the case by the end of June. If Monday's arguments are any indication, the government's position is in serious trouble, and the Second Amendment may be about to get a little stronger.
