Five separate amicus briefs were filed today with the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Hemani, each from organizations that rarely find themselves aligned on the same side of a case.
The Center for Human Liberty, Firearms Policy Coalition, National Association for Gun Rights, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, and Drug Policy Alliance all submitted briefs urging the Court to affirm the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that the federal government cannot automatically strip marijuana users of their Second Amendment rights under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). All five briefs can be found by clicking here.
While each brief takes a different constitutional route, they all arrive at the same conclusion: simply using marijuana — without proof of intoxication, misuse of a firearm, or individualized dangerousness — is not enough to justify disarmament under the Constitution.
The filings come just days after other groups, including the ACLU and Liberty Justice Center, weighed in with similar arguments. With today’s five submissions, Hemani is quickly becoming one of the most heavily briefed Second Amendment cases involving cannabis users in Supreme Court history.
The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association did not even lead with the Second Amendment. Instead, its brief argues that § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments because it criminalizes “status” rather than conduct. The group argues the statute is so vague that ordinary citizens cannot know when lawful gun ownership becomes a federal felony simply because of marijuana use at some undefined time in the past. It calls the terms “unlawful user” and “addicted to” undefined, limitless, and an invitation to arbitrary enforcement.
NYSRPA further argues that the law violates the Eighth Amendment by imposing criminal punishment without a culpable act. In Hemani’s case, the government did not allege intoxication, impairment, or misuse of a firearm. Instead, prosecutors relied entirely on alleged status as a marijuana user. According to the brief, Supreme Court precedent is clear that criminal punishment cannot be imposed based solely on who someone is rather than what they have done.
The National Association for Gun Rights focuses heavily on history. Its brief walks through founding-era regulations addressing alcohol abuse and tavern behavior, noting that while intoxicated individuals could be punished for misuse of firearms while drunk, there is no historical example of disarming sober drinkers. The group argues marijuana users today are far more analogous to historical alcohol users than to the mentally ill or actively dangerous individuals who were historically disarmed.
NAGR also points to crime data showing that tens of millions of Americans use marijuana while only a tiny fraction commit violent offenses, arguing it is irrational and unconstitutional to treat the entire category as presumptively dangerous.
The Firearms Policy Coalition takes an entirely different approach, arguing Congress lacked the constitutional authority under Article I to pass § 922(g)(3) in the first place. Its brief says the federal government does not possess a general police power and cannot ban firearm possession by marijuana users under the Commerce Clause. Citing United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison, FPC argues that merely possessing a firearm is not economic activity and cannot be federally criminalized simply because the firearm once traveled in interstate commerce.
The Center for Human Liberty focuses on the Supreme Court’s Bruen and Rahimi framework, arguing the Fifth Circuit got it right when it held that only individuals actively using marijuana at the time they possess a firearm could potentially be disarmed — not people who simply use marijuana at some undefined point in time. The brief argues historical laws about intoxication support only temporary restrictions during actual impairment, not permanent status-based bans.
The Drug Policy Alliance, meanwhile, does not center its argument on gun rights at all. Instead, it attacks the statute as void for vagueness and warns that its enforcement will disproportionately impact minority communities. DPA argues marijuana use is not a sound proxy for dangerousness, citing public health data and national surveys showing widespread use without corresponding violence. The group also notes the ATF’s recent proposal to narrow the definition of “unlawful user,” which it says highlights how unclear and unworkable the statute is as written.
Taken together, the five briefs form a remarkably broad coalition. Firearms advocacy groups, civil liberties organizations, and drug policy reform advocates are all telling the Court the same thing from different angles: § 922(g)(3) sweeps far beyond any historical tradition of firearm regulation and punishes millions of sober Americans for lawful conduct under state law.
The briefs also emphasize a practical contradiction that has emerged as marijuana legalization spreads. A person can pass a federal background check, purchase a firearm legally, and still face federal prosecution for possessing that same firearm because of marijuana use.
With more than 20 states having legalized recreational marijuana and tens of millions of Americans reporting use in the past year, the case has implications far beyond Hemani himself. If the federal government’s interpretation of § 922(g)(3) stands, roughly one-fifth of the adult population could be classified as too dangerous to exercise a core constitutional right without any individualized finding of risk.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the case, the volume and diversity of amicus filings make clear that Hemani is no longer just a gun case or a marijuana case. It has become a test of whether the Constitution allows the government to disarm people based on status alone.
