The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that the federal government cannot strip a marijuana user of the right to own a firearm, in a decision that further reshapes American gun law and narrows a key provision of a 1968 federal statute.

The case, United States v. Hemani, centred on Ali Danial Hemani, a dual US-Pakistani citizen from Texas who was indicted in 2022 after federal agents searched his home on suspicion of terrorism-related activity. Hemani cooperated with investigators, handed over his firearm, and acknowledged using marijuana roughly every other day. Six months later, he was charged on a single count of possessing a gun while being an unlawful drug user — with no other crimes alleged and no accusation that he ever handled the weapon while intoxicated. He appealed his conviction on Second Amendment grounds.

Writing for the 9-0 court, Justice Neil Gorsuch rejected the government's defence of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which prohibits gun ownership by anyone who is "an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." The government had argued the law was analogous to colonial-era restrictions on "habitual drunkards," but Gorsuch dismissed the comparison as failing "under every measure." He also pointed to the federal government's own role in expanding marijuana access in recent years, writing that Washington was "awkwardly positioned" to argue that the millions of Americans who regularly use cannabis are "categorically and unusually dangerous." The ruling is a narrow one, however: it does not address bans on gun ownership for people convicted of felonies, nor situations involving actual intoxication while armed.

The decision is the latest in a series of rulings reshaping gun law since the court's landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established the "history and tradition" test — requiring that any firearms restriction be rooted in analogous historical precedent from around the time of the nation's founding. That standard has since generated a wave of legal challenges. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, while concurring with Thursday's outcome, renewed their criticism of the Bruen test, calling it "unworkable" and arguing courts should return to the balancing framework previously used.

The case produced striking political alignments. The National Rifle Association and cannabis legalisation groups such as NORML stood together in support of Hemani, while liberal-leaning gun safety organisations like Everytown sided with the Trump administration. The ruling is also a setback for the administration, which had defended the 1968 law even as it has opposed other gun restrictions. The same legal provision was used to convict Hunter Biden — son of former President Joe Biden — for purchasing a gun while addicted to cocaine; he was later pardoned. The court noted Thursday that its ruling did not address the separate clause covering addiction, under which Biden was prosecuted. A second Second Amendment case, concerning restrictions on where individuals may carry firearms, is expected to be decided by early July.