The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that a federal statute banning unlawful drug users from possessing firearms is inconsistent with the Second Amendment, delivering a significant expansion of gun rights for marijuana users across the country. The decision, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, found that the government failed to demonstrate the law has a sufficient historical basis rooted in the nation's founding-era traditions.

The case centered on a Texas marijuana user who argued that prosecuting him under the federal prohibition violated his constitutional rights. Applying the framework the Court established in its landmark 2022 Bruen decision, the justices concluded that no comparable historical tradition existed at the nation's founding that would support categorically disarming people solely on the basis of drug use.

The federal statute at issue, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), had been used in a variety of prosecutions, including as one of the charges brought against Hunter Biden, son of former President Joe Biden, in his federal criminal case. That high-profile connection drew additional attention to Thursday's ruling across the political spectrum.

The unanimous nature of the decision — with justices from across the ideological spectrum joining the opinion — underscores the breadth of the Court's application of the Bruen historical-tradition test to gun restrictions. Legal experts expect the ruling to affect pending cases involving similar charges and could complicate future efforts to enforce related firearms prohibitions tied to substance use.

Thursday's ruling does not address whether Congress may craft a more narrowly tailored law that could survive constitutional scrutiny under the Bruen framework. It also leaves open broader questions about the scope of who may be disarmed under the Second Amendment, questions that courts across the country continue to litigate in the wake of the Court's recent gun-rights decisions.