The U.S. Solicitor General, originally appointed under the Trump administration, has requested more time from the Supreme Court to consider a high-stakes case challenging the federal law that bans cannabis users from owning firearms. The case is drawing national attention as it sits at the intersection of gun rights, drug policy, and constitutional law.
At the center of the legal battle is a federal statute that prohibits anyone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing firearms. Because marijuana remains a Schedule I drug under federal law, this ban applies even in states where cannabis is legal for medical or recreational use. That means millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans—including veterans, patients, and licensed cannabis consumers—could lose their Second Amendment rights simply for using cannabis.
The case was brought by Jared Michael Harrison, an Oklahoma man who was arrested for marijuana possession and later charged with violating the federal gun ban. A federal judge initially ruled in his favor, stating that the law was unconstitutional and that the government failed to prove cannabis use makes someone dangerous or unfit to own a weapon. However, the case was appealed and is now on the Supreme Court’s radar.
The Solicitor General’s office has requested a delay, asking for more time to weigh the legal arguments and implications before the Court decides whether to take up the case. This kind of extension request is not unusual, especially for cases involving sensitive or complex constitutional questions. But it also reflects the growing tension between state-legal cannabis use and federal prohibition.
Gun rights advocates argue that the ban is overly broad and punishes people for using a substance that’s legal in much of the country. They also say the law creates a double standard—alcohol users can legally own firearms, despite the fact that alcohol is linked to far more violence and impairment than cannabis. Cannabis supporters say the policy reinforces outdated stigmas and criminalizes behavior that should be protected under both state law and the Constitution.
On the other side, federal officials maintain that cannabis use is still illegal at the federal level and argue that the law is intended to prevent dangerous individuals from having access to firearms. They worry that relaxing these restrictions could set a precedent for other drug-related offenses and complicate enforcement of national gun laws.
As the Supreme Court considers whether to take up the case, the outcome could have major implications for millions of cannabis users across the United States. A ruling in favor of the plaintiff could strike down the federal gun ban for marijuana users, forcing Congress or the Department of Justice to rewrite the rules. A ruling against could reaffirm the wide-reaching power of federal prohibition—even in legal cannabis states.
With more than half of U.S. adults now living in states where marijuana is legal in some form, and gun ownership remaining a constitutionally protected right, the clash between these two areas of law is likely to keep intensifying until federal reform provides clarity.
For more on topics like these, check this link out FORMER CANNABIS PRISONERS RALLY AT WHITE HOUSE, URGE BIDEN TO FREE OTHERS LEFT BEHIND
