WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the federal government’s power to ban marijuana users from owning firearms, ruling that prosecutors cannot automatically take away a person’s Second Amendment rights simply because that person uses marijuana.
In a unanimous decision, the justices sided with Ali Danial Hemani, a Texas man charged under a federal law that bars unlawful drug users from possessing firearms. The court said the government failed to show that Hemani’s marijuana use made him dangerous, addicted or intoxicated while armed.
The ruling places renewed attention on the plain words of the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
For supporters of gun rights, the most important words are the final four: “shall not be infringed.” They argue that the Constitution does not say the right to keep and bear arms belongs only to citizens the government approves of. It says the right belongs to “the people,” and that right cannot be restricted without a strong constitutional reason.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court, said the decision was narrow. The ruling does not protect people who are addicted to drugs, carrying firearms while intoxicated or proven to be dangerous. It also does not prevent Congress from passing firearm restrictions that are targeted and historically grounded.
Still, the decision is a major Second Amendment ruling because it rejects a blanket government ban based only on marijuana use. The court said the government cannot erase a constitutional right by placing a citizen into a broad category without proving that the person presents a real danger.
The case is especially important because marijuana laws have changed across the country. Many states allow medical or recreational marijuana use, while federal law still treats marijuana as illegal. That conflict has left many Americans uncertain whether marijuana use could cost them their gun rights.
The ruling sends a broader message beyond marijuana. Constitutional rights are not privileges handed out by the government. They are limits on government power. The phrase “shall not be infringed” means the government must meet a heavy burden before restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Supporters of the decision said it protects ordinary citizens from being disarmed by assumption. Critics warned that drug use and firearms can create public safety risks and said lawmakers may need to write clearer rules.
The Supreme Court’s decision does not end the national debate over guns, drugs or public safety. But it makes one point clear: The Second Amendment remains a constitutional command, and the government cannot ignore the words “shall not be infringed” when deciding who may keep and bear arms.