Handcuffs and a handgun next to cannabis leaves on a white background.
Handcuffs and a handgun next to cannabis leaves on a white background.
The Supreme Court should reject a prosecution that treats possession of a gun as a felony if you use marijuana.
Louise Melling,
Deputy Legal Director and Director of Ruth Bader Ginsburg Center for Liberty,
ACLU
Yasmin Cader,
Deputy Legal Director and Director of the Trone Center for Justice and Equality
Share This Page
January 28, 2026
The Supreme Court should reject a prosecution that treats possession of a gun as a felony if you use marijuana.

On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in United States v. Hemani, a case that asks: Is it constitutional for the government to charge someone as a felon because they used marijuana and had a gun locked in a safe? For the ACLU, which is co-counsel in this case, the answer is a clear no.

The government charged Ali Hemani under 18 U.S.C. 搂 922(g)(3), which makes it a felony for 鈥渦nlawful users鈥 of controlled substances or those 鈥渁ddicted to鈥 a controlled substance to possess a firearm. The government argues that Hemani is an 鈥渦nlawful user鈥 of marijuana, a drug nearly half of all Americans say they have tried at some point in their lives and that is now legal in some form 鈥 either for recreational or medical use 鈥 in nearly every state in the country.

The problems with this prosecution are many.

Is it constitutional for the government to charge someone as a felon because they used marijuana and had a gun locked in a safe?

First, the law is impermissibly vague. What is an 鈥渦nlawful user鈥? The government says it鈥檚 a 鈥渉abitual user.鈥 But the word 鈥渉abitual鈥 never appears in the statute, and it is unclear what either of these terms even means. Do they mean someone who smoked marijuana last weekend? Six months ago? Consider a medical marijuana patient with a gun locked in a safe? Or a veteran who uses marijuana to manage chronic pain? Someone who smokes four times a month? Or does it have to be two times a week or five days a week? Vague statutes like 922(g)(3) invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

Second, under the government鈥檚 theory, they don鈥檛 have to prove that a person carried a gun at the same time they used marijuana, let alone that they used a gun recklessly in any way. Take, for example, someone who keeps a gun safely secured at home and consumes marijuana a few days a week. According to the government, those facts alone mean that a person could be convicted of a felony and potentially sentenced to prison. Those are not valid grounds to lock someone up.

Third, the government hasn鈥檛 met its burden under the Second Amendment to justify this prosecution. The court has explained that it evaluates the constitutionality of laws that regulate gun rights by looking at the country鈥檚 鈥渉istory and tradition鈥 of firearm regulations. Here, history provides no support for the government categorically disarming --and prosecuting-- people based on mere use of marijuana.

Fourth, laws that lack clear boundaries do more than create confusion 鈥 they create conditions for unequal treatment. When criminal statutes are vague or open-ended, enforcement decisions are left to discretion. History shows how such discretion operates: Communities of color are more likely to bear the weight of prosecution. As we say in the brief, nobody disputes drugs and guns can be a dangerous combination. But even the most鈥痵erious societal problems must be addressed by laws that provide fair notice of what they prohibit鈥攅specially when they鈥痗riminalize the exercise of鈥痜undamental rights.

Clarity in criminal laws is all the more important when the stakes are so high. Beyond facing a prison sentence, punishment under Section 922(g)(3) means an individual will have a felony conviction that can create lifelong barriers to employment, housing, education, and full democratic participation, consequences that ripple outward to entire families and communities.

We cannot continue to lock people up based on unfounded assumptions 鈥 particularly of 鈥渄angerousness鈥 鈥 or without fundamental notions of fairness. That鈥檚 why we鈥檙e in court arguing that the prosecution of Mr. Hemani is unfair and unconstitutional.

Learn More About the 老熟女午夜福利 on This Page