Today, in United States v. Hemani, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the federal ban on firearm possession by “unlawful drug users” violates the Second Amendment.

The Court ruled the federal firearm ban unconstitutionally overbroad, vague, and ahistorical, affirming that the fundamental right to self-defense is not forfeited by the responsible use of cannabis. While the government may regulate active impairment and immediate dangerousness, the justices determined that the government cannot use ambiguous, status-based categories to disarm citizens in their own homes. The Court further noted that cannabis use lacks the historical disarmament precedent of habitual alcoholism—rejecting a sweeping interpretation that would strip Second Amendment rights from millions of Americans.

Ultimately, this ruling carries immediate, profound implications for millions of Americans who use medical or recreational cannabis under state frameworks — removing the threat of federal criminal liability for peaceful gun ownership.

Cato, joined by Reason Foundation, filed an amicus brief urging the Court to hold that the law violates the Second Amendment. To speak with Michael Fox, a legal fellow in the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice, further on the Hemani decision, contact Christopher Tarvardian.