Trump Administration Still Hasn’t Decided on Challenging Cannabis and Gun Rights Case, Getting More Time from Supreme Court

Jason Beck

Original High At 9 News Story

06-02-2025

The Trump administration has not yet decided whether to appeal a federal appeals court ruling that struck down a ban on gun ownership for Cannabis users, and it has secured additional time from the U.S. Supreme Court to make its decision.

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion with the Supreme Court requesting an extension until November 25, 2024, to determine whether to seek a review of the August 2024 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the case of United States v. Daniels. The Supreme Court granted the extension, giving the administration more time to weigh its options.

The Fifth Circuit’s 2-1 ruling found that the federal prohibition on firearms possession by Cannabis users violates the Second Amendment. The case centers on Paola Connelly, a Texas woman who was prosecuted for possessing firearms while using Cannabis. The court’s majority opinion, written by Circuit Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt, stated, “The Government has not shown that prohibiting Cannabis users from possessing firearms is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Engelhardt, a Trump appointee, was joined by Circuit Judge Andrew S. Oldham, another Trump appointee, while Circuit Judge Stephen A. Higginson, appointed by President Obama, dissented.

The DOJ’s motion for an extension noted that the Solicitor General is still evaluating whether to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. “The Solicitor General has not yet determined whether to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in this case,” the filing said, adding that the extension was needed due to “the press of other matters pending before this Court.”

This case is part of a broader legal landscape challenging federal restrictions on gun ownership for Cannabis users, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Bruen ruling established a new test for evaluating gun laws, requiring that restrictions be consistent with the “historical tradition of firearm regulation” in the U.S. The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Daniels relied heavily on Bruen, arguing that historical laws disarming “dangerous” individuals, such as felons or the mentally ill, did not extend to Cannabis users absent evidence of dangerousness.

Other federal courts have issued conflicting rulings on similar cases. For example, the Third Circuit upheld the federal ban on gun possession by Cannabis users in August 2023, while district courts in Oklahoma and Texas have struck down related restrictions. The Eleventh Circuit is also considering a challenge to the ban, brought by Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, who has argued that her medical Cannabis use should not strip her of her Second Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court itself has signaled interest in resolving these inconsistencies. In September 2024, the Court requested supplemental briefing in a related case, United States v. Perez, to address whether Cannabis use alone justifies disarmament under Bruen. That case, however, was dismissed as improvidently granted on October 15, 2024, leaving the Daniels case as a potential vehicle for the Court to clarify the issue.

Gun rights and Cannabis advocacy groups have been vocal on the matter. The Second Amendment Foundation, which filed an amicus brief in Daniels, celebrated the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, with Executive Director Adam Kraut stating, “This decision is a significant victory for Second Amendment rights and common sense.” Cannabis policy advocates, such as the National Organization for the Reform of Cannabis Laws (NORML), have also supported the ruling, arguing that Cannabis users should not face penalties for exercising constitutional rights. NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said, “It is illogical and discriminatory to treat Cannabis consumers as second-class citizens when it comes to their Second Amendment protections.”

The Trump administration’s hesitation to appeal may reflect political considerations. President Trump has expressed support for Cannabis reform, stating during his 2024 campaign that he would back rescheduling Cannabis to Schedule III and protect state-level Cannabis programs. In a September 2024 Truth Social post, Trump wrote, “We will continue to support the creation of a new category for Cannabis that protects the rights of law-abiding citizens while keeping our communities safe.” However, the administration has also faced pressure from conservative groups and law enforcement organizations, such as the National Fraternal Order of Police, which argue that Cannabis use correlates with increased risks of gun violence, though no definitive data supports this claim in the context of legal Cannabis users.

If the DOJ opts to appeal, the Supreme Court could take up the case in its 2024-2025 term, potentially issuing a landmark ruling on the intersection of Cannabis policy and Second Amendment rights. If the administration declines to appeal, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling will stand, effectively nullifying the federal gun ban for Cannabis users in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, and setting a precedent for other circuits to follow.

For now, the administration’s request for more time underscores the complexity of balancing Cannabis reform, gun rights, and federal law enforcement priorities. The Supreme Court’s deadline extension ensures that this issue will remain unresolved at least until late November 2024.

ReplyForward Add reaction