The Supreme Court Just Limited Federal Gun Charges Against Marijuana Users: What U.S. v. Hemani Means for Florida Gun Owners

If you use marijuana and own a firearm in Florida, federal law has treated you as a criminal for years. Section 922(g)(3) makes it a felony for any unlawful user of a controlled substance to possess a gun, and marijuana is still Schedule I under federal law even though Florida runs one of the largest medical cannabis programs in the country. On June 18, 2026, the Supreme Court changed the math. In United States v. Hemani, a unanimous Court held that the government cannot convict a casual, non-dangerous marijuana user under Section 922(g)(3) without proving that person is actually dangerous. The decision does not erase the statute. It narrows how the government can use it, and that distinction controls who still gets charged.

Hemani does not legalize marijuana possession alongside firearms. It requires the government to prove a casual marijuana user is actually dangerous before it can convict under 922(g)(3).

Key Takeaways

• In United States v. Hemani, the Supreme Court held 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to a casual marijuana user with no proof of dangerousness.
• The Court did not strike the statute down. Bans on felons, addicts, and possession while actually intoxicated under 18 U.S.C. 922(g) remain intact.
• Florida sees heavy federal charging under 922(g)(3) because marijuana stays Schedule I federally while the state issues hundreds of thousands of medical cannabis cards.
• Prosecutors can still proceed if they show individualized dangerousness, so the fight in each case now turns on facts, not just admitted drug use.
• Anyone under federal investigation in the Southern or Middle District of Florida should treat a 922(g)(3) count as contestable, not automatic.

What the Supreme Court Actually Decided

The case came out of a 2022 search of a Texas home. The defendant cooperated. He handed agents a pistol he kept in the house, pointed them to marijuana on the property, and told them he used marijuana roughly every other day. More than six months later, relying on that admission, the government charged him under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) for possessing a firearm as an unlawful user of a controlled substance.

The Court ruled for the defendant. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Gorsuch worked through the historical record the modern Second Amendment test requires. Founding-era laws disarmed habitual drunkards not because they drank regularly, but because chronic intoxication left them unable to manage their affairs and made them dangerous. Section 922(g)(3) is different. It disarms a person based on the status of being a drug user, with no requirement that the government show the person poses any real risk to anyone.

That gap is what sank the prosecution. The Court refused to accept that everyone who regularly uses marijuana is, by definition, dangerous. Handing the government power to label an entire category of people dangerous and strip their gun rights on that basis alone, the Court said, would swallow the Second Amendment. So the conviction could not stand on these facts.

Hemani is an as-applied ruling. The statute survives. The government keeps an open lane to prosecute if it can prove the individual marijuana user is actually dangerous.

What Did Not Change

Read the decision carefully, because the government will. Hemani is an as-applied ruling. The Court did not facially invalidate 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), and it did not hand gun rights to every drug user in the country. It struck the statute as applied to one cooperative, casual marijuana user on one set of facts.

The rest of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) is untouched. The felon-in-possession ban stands. The bar on possession by someone who is actually addicted stands. So does the prohibition on carrying a gun while intoxicated. And the Court left the government an open lane: it can still prosecute a marijuana user under 922(g)(3) if it comes forward with individualized proof that the person's drug use makes him a genuine danger to himself or others.

That is the whole ballgame now. Before Hemani, admitted use plus a gun was close to an automatic count. After Hemani, the government has to prove something more, and that something is contestable in nearly every case.

Section 922(g)(3) rarely leads the federal indictment. It stacks onto drug-trafficking and weapons counts to raise exposure and generate plea leverage, particularly in the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida.

The Exposure: How 922(g)(3) Is Charged in Florida

Section 922(g)(3) is rarely the headline charge. It rides along. Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida and the Middle District of Florida stack it onto drug-trafficking, possession-with-intent, and other firearm counts to raise exposure and create leverage for a plea. A single gun found near marijuana can convert a state-level drug case into a federal one.

The penalty is serious. A conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(g) is punishable by up to 15 years under 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(8), and the count can drive criminal-history and offense-level calculations under the sentencing guidelines. For a Florida medical-marijuana cardholder, the trap is that the state card means nothing to a federal prosecutor. Marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. 812, so federal law still classifies a lawful Florida patient as an unlawful user.

The other pressure point is the firearms purchase form. ATF Form 4473 asks every buyer whether they are an unlawful user of a controlled substance. A medical cannabis patient who answers no to keep the sale alive has potentially created a separate false-statement exposure under 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6). Hemani helps on the user-in-possession count. It does not erase a false-statement problem.

Mistakes People Make Before They Are Even Charged

The damage in these cases is usually done early, before anyone retains a federal criminal defense attorney. The defendant in Hemani handed agents the gun, walked them to the marijuana, and admitted a use pattern in an interview. That cooperation built the government's entire case. His good facts on dangerousness saved him at the Supreme Court. Most people do not get that far.

The recurring errors are predictable. People talk to ATF or FBI agents without counsel and volunteer the admission that completes the offense. They consent to searches they could have declined. They assume that because no charge has been filed, the investigation is not serious. And they wait for an indictment before calling a lawyer, by which point the charging decision is already made.

Federal investigation defense is about controlling what the government learns and when. The single admission that completes the offense is exactly the kind of statement that turns a defensible case into a guilty plea.

Hemani opens an as-applied challenge to the 922(g)(3) count in nearly every casual-use prosecution. The defense file now gets built around the person and the absence of dangerousness, not just the substance.

How the Defense Changes After Hemani

Hemani gives the defense a real tool at the front of the case. The government now has to tie the gun charge to actual dangerousness, not just admitted use. That opens an as-applied challenge in almost every casual-use prosecution: a motion to dismiss the 922(g)(3) count, or a demand that the government articulate its dangerousness theory before trial.

The defense file gets built around the person, not the substance. Stable employment, no violence history, securely stored firearms, cooperation, and the absence of any incident tying intoxication to risk all cut against the government's dangerousness burden. Where the gun count is stacked onto a larger drug case, knocking out or weakening 922(g)(3) can change the guideline math and the leverage in plea negotiations.

Suppression still matters. Many of these cases rest on a consensual search or a custodial admission. If the search or the statement falls, the count often falls with it, Hemani or no Hemani. A federal defense attorney should be screening both the constitutional challenge and the Fourth and Fifth Amendment issues from day one.

Why Timing Controls the Outcome

Charging decisions in federal cases are fluid until they are not. Before an indictment, there is room to give the prosecutor a reason not to bring the 922(g)(3) count at all, or to bring it knowing it is weak. After Hemani, that argument has teeth. A casual-use client with clean dangerousness facts is exactly the profile the Supreme Court just protected.

That window closes fast. Once the count is charged and the plea posture hardens, the same facts are worth less. The clients who benefit most from Hemani are the ones who get in front of the investigation before the government locks in its theory.

Common Questions

Facing a Federal Gun or Drug Charge in Florida?

Facing a federal firearm or drug charge in Florida, or under investigation for one? The 922(g)(3) count is no longer automatic, but the government will still charge it and still push for a plea. AMC Defense Law represents clients in federal investigations and prosecutions across the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida and nationwide. Consultations are confidential. If agents have contacted you, or you believe you are a target, reach out before you make a statement.

Aaron M. Cohen handles federal firearm and drug charge defense across the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida and nationwide.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change and outcomes depend on the specific facts of each case. If you are under investigation or facing charges, consult a qualified attorney about your situation.