\n<\/p>\n
WASHINGTON — <\/span>The Supreme Court seemed likely Monday to loosen a federal law that bars marijuana users from owning guns in a case that crossed typical political lines.<\/p>\n A majority of justices appeared to lean toward a narrow ruling in favor of a Texas man who argued he shouldn\u2019t have been charged with a crime just because he owned a gun and smoked marijuana a few times a week.<\/p>\n The Trump administration asked the high court to revive a criminal case against Ali Danial Hemani under a law that bans all illegal drug users from owning guns. But both liberal and conservative justices seemed skeptical.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat is the government’s evidence that using marijuana a couple of times a week makes someone dangerous?\u201d said conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett.<\/p>\n The Trump administration has asked the court to strike down other gun control laws in the past, but Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris defended the illegal drug user law as a reasonable measure to keep firearms from potentially dangerous people.<\/p>\n Justice Neil Gorsuch, though, pointed out that a growing number of states have legalized cannabis, though it remains illegal on a federal level. \u201cWhat do we do with the fact that marijuana is sort of illegal and sort of isn\u2019t and that the federal government itself is conflicted on this?\u201d Justice Neil Gorsuch said.<\/p>\n He was part of the conservative majority court that expanded gun rights with a landmark case in 2022 known as New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The court said that any gun laws must have a strong grounding in the nation\u2019s historical traditions. Liberal-leaning Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said a ban on firearms for cannabis users didn’t seem to have strong historical roots. \u201cI think your argument sort of falls apart under the Bruen test,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n The government pointed to historical laws that barred \u201chabitual drunkards\u201d from having guns, calling that clear historical evidence in favor of the law. <\/p>\n But an attorney for Hemani, Erin Murphy, said those laws were for extreme cases of people who were almost continuously drunk.<\/p>\n There are many modern cannabis users who regularly take gummies as sleep aids, for example, who are very capable of making safe decisions about firearms, Murphy said.<\/p>\n The case made for some unusual political alliances. The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association both supported Hemani\u2019s case, as did cannabis legalization groups like NORML. On the other side were gun-safety groups like Everytown, which usually finds itself on the other side of the Trump administration on Second Amendment issues.<\/p>\n Some justices, however, appeared concerned that a ruling for Hemani could allow more weapon possession by people who use more dangerous drugs, or require courts to frequently make in-depth considerations about the level of dangerousness presented by a given substances.<\/p>\n \u201cIt just seems to me that this takes a fairly cavalier approach to the necessary consideration of expertise and the judgments we leave to Congress and the executive branch,\u201d Chief Justice John Roberts said.<\/p>\n The court is expected to decide the case by the end of June. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n