# Three Months After Hemani, Congress Has Not Moved. The Justice Department Has. > **Author:** Benjamin Caplan, MD (ABFM Board Certified, MA Lic. #240562, NPI: 1962722637) > **Publisher:** CED Clinic (https://cedclinic.com) > **Canonical URL:** https://cedclinic.com/hemani-marijuana-gun-ban-what-changed/ > **Published:** 2026-07-14T18:41:56-04:00 | **Last Modified / Clinically Audited:** 2026-09-28T10:43:11-04:00 > **Clinical Summary:** The Hemani marijuana gun ban ruling was decided June 18, 2026. Here is what the Court held, what it left open, and the two federal rules that changed since. --- CED Clinical Relevance #77Strong Clinical RelevancePatients ask about this in clinic more often than clinicians expect, and the answers circulating are three months out of date. The Court moved in June. Two federal rules moved in January and August, and one of them takes effect this month. The Supreme Court decided United States v. Hemani on June 18, 2026, and the judgment was unanimous. The reporting that followed focused on what Congress might do next. Congress has done nothing. The rules that actually changed came from the Justice Department, one in January and one taking effect on September 21, and neither has been widely explained to patients. Clinical Insight | CED Clinic Hemani held that prosecuting a man under the unlawful user provision of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), based on nothing but his admitted marijuana use a few times a week, is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Justice Gorsuch wrote for the Court, joined by six colleagues. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Kagan, concurred only in the judgment. The Fifth Circuit was affirmed, which means the indictment stays dismissed and the case is over. The opinion goes out of its way to say the decision is narrow, and it lists what it does not decide. That list is where patient counseling belongs, because it contains almost every scenario a patient is likely to be in. Federal Cannabis LawFirearmsPatient CounselingSupreme CourtRegulatory Change AudiencePatients, caregivers, and clinicians who field questions about [cannabis use](https://cedclinic.com/cannabis-cardiovascular-health-insights-2024/) and federal firearms lawPrimary TopicWhat United States v. Hemani held about 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), and the federal rules that have changed sinceSource[Read the full source](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1234_g2bh.pdf) Why This Matters A large share of [medical cannabis](https://cedclinic.com/therapeutic-benefits-of-thc/) patients own firearms, and many of them have spent years believing that answering a question on a federal form honestly would end in prosecution. Some stopped using cannabis for that reason. Some stopped disclosing it to their physicians, which is the part that reaches clinical care. A clinician is not the right person to give firearms law advice, and should not try. But a clinician is frequently the first person a patient asks, and being able to say accurately what changed, what did not, and where the remaining exposure sits is a reasonable thing to be able to do without stepping outside scope. What the Court Actually Held Ali Hemani is a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan, born in Texas, who was living with his parents in the Dallas area and working a stable job. During a 2022 search of the family home, he surrendered a gun he kept there, pointed agents to marijuana on the property, and told them in a consented interview that he used marijuana about every other day. More than six months later, relying solely on that admitted use, the government charged him under section 922(g)(3). The government’s legal theory was that the statute automatically disarms anyone who is an unlawful user of any controlled substance, from the moment they become one until they stop, without regard to which substance, in what amount, whether their use has ever made them dangerous, why they keep a gun, or how safely they store it. To justify that under the Second Amendment framework from *Bruen* and *Rahimi*, the government analogized to historical habitual drunkard laws. The Court found the analogy failed on each metric the government proposed. Historical habitual drunkard laws targeted people whose drinking left them practically incapacitated and unable to manage their affairs, not people who drank regularly. Vagrancy, civil commitment, and surety laws served purposes other than protecting the public from unusually dangerous people. And each of those historical mechanisms provided some form of process before a person lost a liberty, where section 922(g)(3) on the government’s reading divests the right automatically with no pre-deprivation process at all. The Part of the Opinion That Matters Most in a Clinic Room The final section of the Court’s analysis is one paragraph long and it is the paragraph patients need. The Court states that its decision is narrow and then names what it does not address: efforts to ban addicts or people who are presently intoxicated from possessing a firearm; other prophylactic laws Congress might adopt after determining that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing firearms; the separate felon provision at section 922(g)(1); and whether the government could bring a section 922(g)(3) prosecution accompanied by individualized proof that a defendant’s drug use makes him a danger to himself or others. Read that list against a real patient. Someone with a cannabis use disorder diagnosis is in the first category. Someone who keeps a firearm accessible and uses cannabis in the evening is arguably in the same category on any night they are intoxicated. Someone whose record includes a felony conviction is in the third. The ruling is genuinely significant, and it also leaves most of the practical exposure untouched. The Court also noted something clinicians should register: the government’s own conduct undercut its dangerousness claim. The Justice Department had directed federal prosecutors to curtail enforcement against marijuana users, most states have legalized marijuana to some degree, and the government had recently moved some marijuana products from Schedule I to Schedule III. The Rule That Changed Before Hemani, in January Six months before the decision, on January 22, 2026, the Justice Department published a final rule at 91 FR 2698 revising the regulatory definition of unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance at 27 CFR 478.11. It took effect on publication and received far less attention than it deserved. The 1996 definition it replaced allowed an inference of current unlawful use from a single incident: one drug conviction, one failed test, or one admission of use within the past year. The amended definition removes those single-incident examples. It now turns on a person who regularly uses a controlled substance over an extended period of time continuing into the present, and states that unlawful use requires evidence of sufficient regularity and recency to indicate the individual is actively engaged in that conduct. It adds that a person is not an unlawful user if they have ceased regular unlawful use, or if their use is isolated or sporadic and does not demonstrate a pattern of ongoing use. For a patient who used cannabis twice last year, that is a meaningful change in the operative federal definition, and it predates Hemani rather than following from it. The Rule That Takes Effect on September 21 On August 20, 2026, roughly two months after Hemani, the Justice Department published a final rule at 91 FR 54054 implementing criteria for relief from federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). It amends 27 CFR Part 478 and creates a new 28 CFR Part 107. It takes effect September 21, 2026, and the Department, rather than ATF, processes the applications. The rule sets presumptive disqualifiers, some permanent and some time-limited, and an extraordinary circumstances exception. It also does something specific about cannabis. The preamble states that in light of Hemani, and in response to comments objecting to presuming ineligibility for unlawful marijuana users, the final rule excludes from the status-based presumptions those individuals whose unlawful use of or addiction to a controlled substance consists only of marijuana. There is a wrinkle worth naming plainly. The application requires affidavits from three references, unrelated by blood or marriage, who have known the applicant at least three years, attesting under penalty of perjury that to their knowledge the applicant is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance, and the rule says that attestation applies regardless of whether the substance has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the applicant’s state. Marijuana-only use no longer creates a presumption against relief, and the reference attestation still asks the underlying question. Where Congress Actually Is The Congressional Research Service published a Legal Sidebar on July 7, 2026, LSB11450, titled *Supreme Court Rules Federal Gun Ban Unconstitutional as Applied to Marijuana User*. Its Considerations for Congress section observes that the Court stressed the narrowness of its ruling and recognized room for legislative action, and that Congress might amend the law to capture more narrowly only those individuals who, because of their use or the nature of the drug involved, may present a danger to themselves or others. That is a description of legislative options, which is what CRS products are for. It is not a forecast, and it should not be read as one. Section 922(g)(3) has not been amended. Nothing in the record between June 18 and today suggests a rewrite is close, and the plain reading of three months of silence is that the statute stands as written while the executive branch adjusts around it. For patients, that distinction is the whole point. Counseling should track what has been enacted and what has taken effect, not what a research memo says a legislature could do if it chose to. Case and Regulatory SnapshotCaseUnited States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234, 608 U.S. ___ (2026)PostureCertiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; argued March 2, 2026; decided June 18, 2026JudgmentAffirmed. The district court’s dismissal of the indictment stands and the prosecution is over.LineupGorsuch, J., for the Court, joined by Roberts, C.J., and Thomas, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson, JJ. Thomas, J., and Jackson, J., concurring. Alito, J., concurring in the judgment, joined by Kagan, J.Statute18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substanceHoldingProsecution of Mr. Hemani under the unlawful user provision, on his admitted marijuana use alone, is inconsistent with the Second AmendmentExpressly Not DecidedBans on addicts or the presently intoxicated; future prophylactic laws Congress might adopt for a particular drug; section 922(g)(1); prosecutions with individualized proof of dangerousnessRelated Rule, January91 FR 2698, effective January 22, 2026: revised definition of unlawful user at 27 CFR 478.11, requiring regularity and recency rather than a single incidentRelated Rule, August91 FR 54054, effective September 21, 2026: relief from firearms disabilities criteria at 28 CFR Part 107, excluding marijuana-only use from the status-based presumptionsScheduling Context91 FR 22714, effective April 28, 2026: FDA-approved products containing marijuana moved to Schedule III. Marijuana itself remains in Schedule I.Congressional Status as of 2026-09-13Section 922(g)(3) has not been amended. CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11450, July 7, 2026, describes options rather than predicting action. How Strong Is This Evidence? Everything load-bearing here comes from a published opinion of the Supreme Court and from final rules printed in the Federal Register with citations and effective dates. Those are the strongest available sources for what the law is, and they can be read directly rather than through summaries. What none of them can tell you is how a given United States Attorney will exercise discretion, how a licensed firearms dealer will interpret a form, or how any of this interacts with a specific state’s licensing scheme. Those are the questions patients tend to be asking, and they sit outside what a published opinion resolves. Where This Paper Deserves Skepticism The most common misreading of Hemani is that it legalized firearm possession for cannabis consumers. It did not. It held that this prosecution of this man on this record could not stand, and it explicitly declined to resolve the categories most patients fall into. As-applied relief is real relief, and it is narrower than a facial holding. The second misreading runs the other way, treating the Court’s reservations as a warning that prosecutions are imminent. Nothing in the record supports that either. The honest position is that the broad theory is gone, the narrow theories are undecided, and the Justice Department has spent 2026 loosening rather than tightening the surrounding regulations. What This Paper Does Not Show The opinion does not establish that cannabis use is irrelevant to firearm safety, and it takes no position on that question. It is a decision about historical analogues and constitutional method, not about impairment. A person who is intoxicated and handling a firearm is a safety problem regardless of what the Second Amendment permits. It also does not resolve state law. States regulate firearm licensing and carry permits on their own terms, and several condition eligibility on controlled substance use in ways this ruling does not touch. A patient asking whether they may carry in their state is asking a state law question that a federal constitutional holding does not answer. How This Fits With the Broader Clinical Conversation The federal posture toward cannabis in 2026 has been a series of narrow, technical adjustments rather than a single reversal. FDA-approved products containing marijuana moved to Schedule III in April while marijuana itself stayed in Schedule I. The broader rescheduling proceeding continued through a hearing that began in late June without a final rule. The definition of an unlawful drug user was narrowed in January. Relief from firearms disabilities was reorganized in August. Read together, those actions describe a government stepping back from categorical treatment of cannabis consumers without saying so in a single headline. That pattern is easy to miss if you follow only the legislative debate, and it is the pattern that actually reaches patients. Dr. Caplan’s Take I have had this conversation in clinic more times than I can count, and it almost never starts as a legal question. It starts with a patient who stopped taking something that was working, or who will not put it in their chart, because of a form they have to sign somewhere else. What I tell them now is shorter than it used to be. The Supreme Court threw out the government’s broad theory in June, and the Justice Department has narrowed the definition of who counts as an unlawful user. That is real. It is also not a clean answer, because the Court deliberately left open the situations involving addiction, intoxication, and individualized proof. If your question is whether you personally are safe on a federal form, that is a question for a lawyer, and it is worth the consultation. What I can tell you as your physician is that hiding your cannabis use from me makes your care worse and does nothing for your legal position. Clinical Bottom Line Hemani ended the government’s categorical theory that any marijuana user is automatically disarmed, and the January rule narrowed who counts as an unlawful user in the first place. Neither one clears a patient who is addicted, presently intoxicated, or the subject of individualized proof of dangerousness, and Congress has not rewritten the statute. Refer firearms questions to counsel, and keep the clinical conversation on impairment, storage, and honest disclosure. What a Careful Reader Should Take Away Carry forward two facts and one habit. The facts are that the categorical theory lost and that the regulatory definition of an unlawful user now requires a pattern of regular, recent use rather than a single incident. The habit is to check the effective date on anything you are told about this subject, because the most consequential change of 2026 takes effect on September 21 and most summaries still predate it. Evidence Interpretation Guide Table of Contents - [How to read a narrow Supreme Court holding without turning it into a general rule](#How_to_read_a_narrow_Supreme_Court_holding_without_turning_it_into_a_general_rule) - [The Hemani Decision, Seen From Eight Angles](#The_Hemani_Decision_Seen_From_Eight_Angles)[Something changed, and it is not a green light](#Something_changed_and_it_is_not_a_green_light) - [Stay in your lane and still be useful](#Stay_in_your_lane_and_still_be_useful) - [As-applied is not facial](#As-applied_is_not_facial) - [Read the concurrences before quoting the vote count](#Read_the_concurrences_before_quoting_the_vote_count) - [The regulatory change came first](#The_regulatory_change_came_first) - [What actually takes effect this month](#What_actually_takes_effect_this_month) - [What the next case will probably be about](#What_the_next_case_will_probably_be_about) - [The executive branch moved while the legislature did not](#The_executive_branch_moved_while_the_legislature_did_not) - [Frequently Asked Questions](#Frequently_Asked_Questions)[Related](#Related) ## How to read a narrow Supreme Court holding without turning it into a general rule The Research QuestionIs prosecuting a person under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), based only on regular marijuana use, consistent with the Second Amendment?The Patient QuestionI use medical cannabis and I own a firearm. Did the Supreme Court fix my problem?The Bottom LineIt fixed one version of the problem. The Court rejected the categorical theory and explicitly reserved the questions involving addiction, intoxication, and individualized proof, which is where most real situations sit. CED Perspective Lens ## The Hemani Decision, Seen From Eight Angles One unanimous judgment, one narrow opinion, and two federal rules most people missed. Lens OverviewThe Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit on June 18, 2026, holding that prosecuting Ali Hemani under the unlawful user provision on his marijuana use alone violated the Second Amendment, while expressly reserving cases involving addiction, present intoxication, and individualized proof of dangerousness. #### Something changed, and it is not a green light If you use cannabis regularly and own a firearm, the government can no longer argue that your use by itself automatically disarms you. That was the theory the Court rejected, and rejecting it matters. What the Court did not decide is whether a person who is addicted, who is intoxicated at the time, or against whom the government offers individualized evidence of dangerousness can still be prosecuted. It listed those as open. If your own situation touches any of them, this ruling does not answer your question and a lawyer should. Lens takeawayThe broad theory is gone. The specific questions most people are actually asking were left open on purpose. #### Stay in your lane and still be useful The useful clinical contribution is not legal interpretation. It is restoring disclosure. Patients who conceal cannabis use because of firearms concerns produce incomplete medication reconciliation, unexplained interactions, and surprises around anesthesia and procedural sedation. Saying accurately that the Supreme Court rejected the categorical federal theory in June, and that the question is now narrower and still worth a lawyer’s attention, is usually enough to reopen the conversation without giving legal advice. Lens takeawayYour goal is an accurate chart, not a legal opinion. Say what changed, then refer. #### As-applied is not facial The Court affirmed a judgment dismissing one indictment on one record. It did not strike section 922(g)(3) from the code, and the statute is still on the books in the same words it had in May. Treating an as-applied holding as a general permission is the most predictable error here, and it is the error most likely to get a reader into trouble, because the categories the Court reserved cover a great many real people. Lens takeawayThe statute survived. One application of it did not. #### Read the concurrences before quoting the vote count The judgment was unanimous, which is how most coverage described it. The opinion was not. Seven justices joined Justice Gorsuch. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Kagan, concurred only in the judgment, and separate concurrences came from Justice Thomas and from Justice Jackson joined by Justice Sotomayor. That distribution matters for predicting the next case. A unanimous bottom line built on a seven justice opinion and a two justice concurrence in the judgment is a weaker signal about future doctrine than a genuinely unanimous opinion would be. Lens takeawayUnanimous judgment, divided reasoning. Do not read the vote as a consensus on method. #### The regulatory change came first The January 2026 rule revising the definition of unlawful user at 27 CFR 478.11 is the change that quietly did the most work for ordinary patients, and it landed five months before the Court ruled. It removed the 1996 examples that let a single conviction, a single failed test, or a single admission within the past year support an inference of current use. Anyone whose understanding of this area was formed before 2026 is working from a definition that no longer exists, which is a common source of outdated advice circulating in patient communities. Lens takeawayThe operative federal definition of an unlawful user changed in January, independent of the Court. #### What actually takes effect this month The relief from disabilities rule at 91 FR 54054 takes effect September 21, 2026, moving the section 925(c) process to the Justice Department under a new 28 CFR Part 107. Its preamble explicitly removes marijuana-only unlawful use from the status-based presumptions against relief, citing Hemani and the public comments. The same rule requires three unrelated references who have known the applicant for at least three years to attest under penalty of perjury that the applicant is not an unlawful user of any controlled substance, and says that attestation stands regardless of state legalization. Those two features sit in the same document. Lens takeawayThe presumption against marijuana-only users is gone; the reference attestation is not. Both are in the September 21 rule. #### What the next case will probably be about The Court handed the government a map of theories it did not reject. The likeliest next litigation involves a prosecution supported by individualized evidence of dangerousness, or one framed around addiction or present intoxication rather than use. A congressional rewrite narrowing the statute to dangerousness is possible and has been described by the Congressional Research Service as an available option. Describing an option is not predicting a bill, and nothing has been introduced and enacted in the three months since. Lens takeawayExpect the next development in a courtroom or a Federal Register notice before a statute. #### The executive branch moved while the legislature did not Across 2026 the pattern has been administrative. FDA-approved marijuana products moved to Schedule III in April while marijuana itself stayed in Schedule I. The unlawful user definition narrowed in January. The relief process was rebuilt in August. Coverage that frames the post-Hemani period as a story about congressional options misses where the actual changes occurred. For a patient trying to understand their exposure, the Federal Register has been more informative this year than the Congressional Record. Lens takeawayFollow effective dates in the Federal Register, not floor speeches. Related Reading at CED ClinicContinue exploring the evidence[ATF Form 4473 and Medical Cannabis](https://cedclinic.com/atf-form-4473-medical-cannabis-gun-purchase/) The form itself, and the question that generates most of these conversations in the first place. [Read the form breakdown](https://cedclinic.com/atf-form-4473-medical-cannabis-gun-purchase/)[Does a Medical Marijuana Card Prevent Gun Ownership?](https://cedclinic.com/fact-check-does-a-mississippi-medical-marijuana-card-prevent-you-from-owning-a-gun/) A fact check of the single most common claim patients arrive with, and where the federal and state pieces separate. [See the fact check](https://cedclinic.com/fact-check-does-a-mississippi-medical-marijuana-card-prevent-you-from-owning-a-gun/)[HHC, Schedule I, and the Federal Hemp Deadlines](https://cedclinic.com/is-hhc-legal-dea-schedule-i-drug-code/) The scheduling backdrop the Hemani opinion references, including what moved to Schedule III in April and what did not. [Read the scheduling explainer](https://cedclinic.com/is-hhc-legal-dea-schedule-i-drug-code/) Join the Conversation Have a question about how this applies to your situation? [Ask Dr. Caplan](https://benjamincaplan.com/ask-dr-caplan) Want to discuss this topic with other patients and caregivers? [Join the forum discussion](https://cedclinic.com/interact/discussion-forums/forum/cannabis-industry/) ## Frequently Asked Questions What did the Supreme Court decide in United States v. Hemani? On June 18, 2026 the Court held that prosecuting Ali Hemani under the unlawful user provision of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), based solely on his admitted marijuana use a few times a week, is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Justice Gorsuch wrote for the Court, joined by six justices, and Justice Alito with Justice Kagan concurred in the judgment. The Fifth Circuit was affirmed and the indictment stays dismissed. Does Hemani mean cannabis users can now legally own firearms? No. The ruling rejected the government’s categorical theory that any unlawful drug user is automatically disarmed, but the Court described its decision as narrow and listed what it did not decide. It did not address bans on people who are addicted or presently intoxicated, the separate felon provision, or a prosecution supported by individualized proof that a person’s drug use makes them dangerous. Is 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) still law? Yes. The Court affirmed a judgment dismissing one indictment on one factual record. That is as-applied relief, not a facial invalidation, so the statute remains on the books in the same words. As of September 2026 Congress has not amended it, and a Congressional Research Service Legal Sidebar from July describes possible amendments as options rather than pending legislation. What changed in the federal definition of an unlawful drug user? A Justice Department final rule published January 22, 2026 at 91 FR 2698 revised 27 CFR 478.11. The definition now turns on regular use over an extended period continuing into the present, with sufficient regularity and recency to show the person is actively engaged in that conduct. The old examples allowing an inference from a single conviction, failed test, or admission within the past year were removed. What is the September 21, 2026 firearms rule? A Justice Department final rule published August 20, 2026 at 91 FR 54054 sets criteria for relief from federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c), creating 28 CFR Part 107 and moving the process to the Department rather than ATF. Its preamble states that in light of Hemani the rule excludes marijuana-only unlawful use from the status-based presumptions against granting relief. Was marijuana rescheduled to Schedule III? Not marijuana itself. A final rule effective April 28, 2026 at 91 FR 22714 moved FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. The broader proposal to reschedule marijuana remained in an administrative proceeding, with a hearing that began June 29, 2026, and no final rule had issued as of mid September 2026. Should I tell my doctor I use cannabis if I own firearms? Yes. Concealing cannabis use produces incomplete medication reconciliation and creates avoidable risk around anesthesia, procedural sedation, and drug interactions. Your clinical record is not a federal firearms form, and withholding the information does not improve your legal position. If you have a specific question about federal or state firearms eligibility, that belongs with an attorney who practices in this area. Does this ruling affect state gun permits? It does not resolve them. Hemani is a federal constitutional decision about one federal statute. States set their own licensing, permitting, and carry rules, and several condition eligibility on controlled substance use in ways this decision does not address. A patient asking whether they may obtain or keep a state permit is asking a state law question that requires state-specific legal advice. ### Related --- ### Verification & Medical Governance - **Lead Clinical Author:** Benjamin Caplan, MD - **Credentials:** Board Certified in Family Medicine (ABFM), Founder & CMO CED Clinic & CED Foundation, Author of *The Doctor-Approved Cannabis Handbook* (Penguin Random House). - **Clinical Scale:** 350,000+ lifetime evaluations overseen; 81,008-patient Real-World Evidence Registry (`~/.ced_rwe_vault.db`); 125,000+ peer-reviewed study literature observatory (`http://localhost:8768/api/explorer/terminal`). - **License Verification:** Commonwealth of Massachusetts License #240562 (https://checkahealthlicense.mass.gov/). - **NPI Registry:** 1962722637 (https://npiregistry.cms.hhs.gov/provider-view/1962722637). - **Ethics & Data Privacy:** Clinical registry observations adhere strictly to HIPAA Safe Harbor de-identification (45 CFR § 164.514(b)) and criteria for secondary research exemption under 45 CFR § 46.104(d)(4).