Nov 10, 2025 | Supreme Court
Supreme Court to Hear Case on Gun Rights and Marijuana Use
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear U.S. v. Hemani, a case challenging the federal ban on gun ownership by individuals who use marijuana—even in states where it’s legal. The decision could reshape how drug use intersects with Second Amendment rights.
The federal law in question prohibits firearm possession by anyone who uses controlled substances. This includes marijuana, which remains illegal under federal law despite legalization in many states. Gun rights groups argue this blanket ban violates constitutional protections.
-
Federal Law at Issue
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), drug users are barred from owning firearms. This includes medical marijuana patients.
-
State vs. Federal Conflict
States like Michigan allow marijuana use, but federal law still applies. This creates legal confusion for gun owners.
-
Gun Rights Advocacy
Groups like the Second Amendment Foundation argue that responsible marijuana users should not lose their gun rights.
The court has granted an extension, moving the deadline for the government to file a brief from December 4 to December 12. The respondents are now required to submit their brief by January 20, 2026, while the government will need to provide a reply brief by February 19.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
FAQs
Q: Can medical marijuana users own guns?
A: Not under current federal law, even if their state allows marijuana use.
Q: What is the Supreme Court deciding?
A: Whether the federal ban violates the Second Amendment.
Q: When will the case be heard?
A: Briefs are due in early 2026, with a decision likely later that year.
Q: What happens if the Court rules against the ban? A: It could restore gun rights to marijuana users nationwide.
Q: Does this affect other drug users?
A: Yes. The ruling could impact how gun laws apply to all controlled substances.
Legal Defense: Komorn Law PLLC
If you or someone you know is facing marijuana-related charges under from the cannabis enforcement teams or federal drug laws, Attorney Michael Komorn of Komorn Law PLLC offers aggressive and strategic defense. With decades of experience in cannabis law and federal litigation, Komorn Law understands the nuances of Michigan’s evolving marijuana regulations and how to challenge overreach or misapplication in court.
Komorn Law can:
- Challenge unlawful search and seizure
- Dispute quantity assessments and intent
- Navigate federal vs. state law conflicts
- Advocate for reduced or dismissed charges
State / Federal Legal Defense
With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.
KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550
Jun 23, 2025 | Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear Snope v. Brown, a case challenging Maryland’s requirement for a permit to carry a concealed handgun.
While the Court offered no explanation, the decision leaves in place a lower court ruling that upheld the state’s permitting system—raising questions about how far constitutional carry rights extend.
This case followed the Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down New York’s “proper cause” requirement for concealed carry permits. Plaintiffs in Snope argued that Maryland’s similar restrictions violated the Second Amendment. However, the Court’s refusal to hear the case means Maryland’s law stands—for now.
- Case Background: Snope v. Brown
Plaintiffs challenged Maryland’s concealed carry permit law, arguing it imposed unconstitutional barriers to lawful gun ownership. The Fourth Circuit upheld the law, and the Supreme Court denied review on June 2, 2025.
- Justice Kavanaugh’s Statement
While concurring with the denial, Justice Kavanaugh emphasized that the Court may revisit the issue if states continue to impose burdensome restrictions inconsistent with Bruen.
- Second Amendment Precedent
The Bruen decision established that gun regulations must align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Maryland’s law was found to meet that standard by lower courts.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
FAQs
Q: What is constitutional carry?
A: It refers to the right to carry a firearm without a permit, based on the Second Amendment.
Q: Did the Supreme Court ban permits?
A: No. States can still require permits if the laws meet constitutional standards.
Q: What did Bruen change?
A: It required states to justify gun restrictions based on historical tradition.
Q: Can Maryland residents carry without a permit?
A: No. Maryland still requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun.
Q: Will the Court revisit this issue?
A: Possibly. Justices have signaled interest in future cases.
Legal Defense: Komorn Law PLLC
If you or someone you know is facing marijuana-related charges under from the cannabis enforcement teams or federal drug laws, Attorney Michael Komorn of Komorn Law PLLC offers aggressive and strategic defense. With decades of experience in cannabis law and federal litigation, Komorn Law understands the nuances of Michigan’s evolving marijuana regulations and how to challenge overreach or misapplication in court.
Komorn Law can:
- Challenge unlawful search and seizure
- Dispute quantity assessments and intent
- Navigate federal vs. state law conflicts
- Advocate for reduced or dismissed charges
State / Federal Legal Defense
With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.
KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550
May 2, 2024 | Blog, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Ruling
The Constitution provides “no textual justification for saying that the existence or the scope of a State’s power to expropriate private property without just compensation varies according to the branch of government effecting the expropriation.”
The case in question is Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California.
Background:
Background of the Case: George Sheetz, the petitioner, was required by the County of El Dorado to pay a $23,420 traffic impact fee as a condition of receiving a residential building permit. The fee was part of a “General Plan” enacted by the County’s Board of Supervisors to address increasing demand for public services spurred by new development.
Reason for the Case:
Sheetz claimed that conditioning the building permit on the payment of a traffic impact fee constituted an unlawful “exaction” of money in violation of the Takings Clause. He argued that the Court’s decisions in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, and Dolan v. City of Tigard, required the County to make an individualized determination that the fee imposed on him was necessary to offset traffic congestion attributable to his project.
Content of the Case:
The courts below ruled against Sheetz based on their view that Nollan and Dolan apply only to permit conditions imposed on an ad hoc basis by administrators, not to a fee like this one imposed on a class of property owners by Board-enacted legislation.
Final Opinion of the Case:
The Supreme Court held that the Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land-use permit conditions. Therefore, the ruling was in favor of Sheetz, overturning the decision of the lower courts.
Read the full SCOTUS Opinion here
Need to Fight the System?
See what we can do for you
Call to Fight for your Rights (248) 357-2550
Jan 15, 2024 | Blog, Supreme Court, USA news
The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions we’re watching is available here.
Organized crime, from the mafia to small-time money laundering schemes, often evades criminal prosecution. To bolster efforts to fight organized crime, Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO, more than 50 years ago.
In addition to the criminal penalties for violating RICO, the law also authorizes private individuals to bring civil lawsuits for an injury to their “business or property” as a result of the defendant’s “racketeering activity,” which the law defines broadly to include a wide range of criminal offenses.
This week, we highlight petitions that ask the court to consider, among other things, whether someone can sue under RICO to recover lost earnings.
Marketed as “a revolution in medicinal hemp-powered wellness,” Dixie X is a CBD supplement that claims to offer a variety of health benefits. After learning about Dixie X in a magazine, Douglas Horn began using the supplement in 2012 to soothe pain and inflammation from a car accident. Although the ad claimed that the supplement does not contain any THC (the active ingredient in marijuana),
RESTORE YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS
RESTORE YOUR PROFESSIONAL LICENSE
RESTORE YOUR DRIVER LICENSE
RESTORE YOUR PAST (Expungements)
Call our Office for a free case evaluation
Komorn Law (248) 357-2550
(tap here to call now)
Professional License Restoration / Rights Restoration / Record Expungments / Driver License Restoration
Satisfied, Horn began using Dixie X. Shortly after, he failed a random drug test at work and was fired. Suspecting the supplement, Horn sent a batch to an independent lab, which found that the product contained THC.
Horn went to federal court in New York, arguing that the company that sold Dixie X, Medical Marijuana, Inc. – which, despite its name, deals only in hemp-based CBD products – was responsible for his termination. Part of his lawsuit alleged violations of state law, including a claim that he was fraudulently induced to purchase the supplement while unaware of its risks. But Horn also argued that the company injured his “business or property” under RICO by conspiring to commit federal mail and wire fraud that resulted in the loss of his salary.
In Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, the maker of Dixie X asks the justices to grant review and reverse the 2nd Circuit’s ruling. The company argues that economic harm stemming from a personal injury has no business, so to speak, under RICO. “If quintessential personal injuries count as injuries to ‘business or property’ just because economic damage inevitably results,” the company writes, “Congress’ careful limitation on civil RICO claims would be toothless.”
Read the Rest here at ScotusBlog
Komorn Law – Federal Courts and All Michigan Courts
A list of this week’s featured petitions is below:
Yim v. City of Seattle, Washington
23-329
Issue: Whether Seattle’s restriction on private owners’ right to exclude potentially dangerous tenants from their property violates the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
Amer v. New Jersey
23-351
Issues: (1) Whether a defendant is always “unable to stand trial” under Article VI(a) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers while a pretrial motion is pending; and (2) whether a defendant has been “brought to trial” within 180 days of his request for final disposition of charges under Article III(a) of the agreement at the point when jury selection begins.
Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn
23-365
Issue: Whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Bhattacharya v. State Bank of India
23-390
Issue: Whether, to establish a “direct effect in the United States” under 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2), a plaintiff must make an extratextual showing that either the sovereign engaged in a U.S.-based “legally significant act,” or that the U.S. effects were “legally significant” in addition to being direct.
Apr 11, 2022 | Blog, News
The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to address whether federal drug law that criminalizes possession of marijuana invalidates state orders requiring employers and their workers’ compensation insurers to pay for medical marijuana prescriptions for employees injured on the job.
However, before it fully takes on the question, the high court has asked the Solicitor General, who represents the federal government before the high court, for guidance in light of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution that gives federal statutes primacy over state laws.
Five state supreme courts have addressed whether the reimbursement of medical marijuana costs is permissible, with two ruling yes and three ruling no. The Supreme Court is being asked to resolve this split in authority. Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana is a criminal offense, with the exception of when the drug is part of a Food and Drug Administration research study.
The Supreme Court’s involvement is related to two cases from Minnesota — Bierbach v Diggers Polaris and State Auto/ United Fire & Casualty and Musta v. Mendota Heights Dental Center and — in which injured employees challenged their employers and their insurers for refusing to reimburse them for their medical marijuana prescriptions.
Musta suffered a neck injury in her work at a medical facility while Bierbach was injured in an accident while working for an all-terrain vehicle dealer.
Read More here –> READ IT
Komorn Law Social Media
Recent Posts
Tag Cloud
BMMR
cannabis
corruption. prosecutors
dispensary
Driving
DUI
FAQs
forfeiture
gun rights
hemp
komornlaw
lara
law enforcement abuse
laws
Legalization
marijuana
Medical Marijuana
Michigan
Michigan Court of Appeals
michigan laws
michigan news
michigan supreme court
MMFLA
news
police
politics
science
usa news
us supreme court
Your Rights
DISCLAIMER
This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – do your research on Official Government and State Sites, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain.
