Cannabis News

Trump DOJ Asks Supreme Court For Delayed Schedule In Case On Marijuana Users’ Gun Rights

Published

6 hours ago

October 23, 2025

admin

The Justice Department is asking the US Supreme Court for more time to submit briefs in a case. concerns the constitutionality of the federal ban on gun possession by people who use marijuana and other drugs.

In a Trump administration motion submitted to the court on Thursday, the DOJ said there was mutual agreement between its attorneys and those representing the defendant in the case that the current deadline for filing briefs and reply briefs should be revised due to “press from other cases.”

Currently, the Department of Justice must present its first brief to the court by December 4th, but requests an extension until December 12th. This would extend the defendant’s brief until January 20th.

“If these extensions are granted, the response brief would be February 19, 2026. Both parties agree to this briefing schedule,” U.S. Attorney General D. John Sauer, an appointee of President Donald Trump, said in the motion.

The Trump administration has routinely pursued policies that restrict gun ownership by people who use cannabis, citing state law that “targets a category of people who are at clear risk of firearm misuse” and should be upheld.

After several years of conflicting court rulings on related lawsuits, judges on Monday granted the certificate USA v. to Heman deciding whether the ban — known as Section 922(g)(3) — is consistent with the Second Amendment.

Although the court on Monday declined to take up yet another case on the gun rights of cannabis users, several others are still awaiting the justices’ decision. But the opportunity to take Tabernacle The news will be especially welcome for the Justice Department, which has consistently defended the firearms ban and asked SCOTUS to review the case instead of the alternatives.

This could be related to the fact that the defendant is not only a marijuana user, but also a cocaine user who sold drugs in the past, so the DOJ may have reasoned that he is an unsympathetic face to the problem. In other cases the defendant was found only in possession of a firearm and marijuana.

In June, the attorney general filed a case with the Supreme Court saying that “Section 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment” and that the statute “targets a category of people who are clearly at risk of misusing firearms: habitual users of illegal drugs.”

The law “prohibits the possession of firearms only temporarily and leaves it up to them to lift the restriction at any time; anyone who stops using illegal drugs can start owning a firearm,” Sauer said.

Notably, although the government refers to “habitual users” of illegal drugs 40 times, that word itself does not appear in 922(g)(3). The statute’s language prohibits “any person who is an unlawful user or addict of any controlled substance” from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition.

In a separate filing for the case in August, the Department of Justice also emphasized that “it is the subject of a submitted question. multi-sided and growing circuit conflict.” In seeking the judge’s certification, the attorney general also noted that the defendant is a joint American-Pakistani with ties to Iranian entities hostile to the United States, putting him on the FBI’s radar.

Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to take it TabernacleIf the justices declare 922(g)(3) constitutional, that ruling could mean a win for the government in the remaining cases. The High Court on Monday denied the writ petition USA v. Cooperpending decisions US v. Daniels and USA v. Sam. The justices had planned to discuss all cases behind closed doors last Friday.

Court also recently He denied a request to certify in another gun and marijuana case, USA v. Baxter, but that wasn’t particularly surprising since both the DOJ and the defendants had advised against pursuing the matter further after a lower court reinstated his conviction for being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm.

A number of federal courts have questioned the legality of Section 922(g)(3) in recent years, and while the general ban on gun possession among drug users is not entirely objectionable, there is little historical precedent for a broad restriction of Second Amendment rights to an entire category of people.

Meanwhile, in recent interviews with Marihuana Moment, several Republican senators shared their views federal ban on possession of firearms by marijuana users—Arguing that alcoholics can legally purchase and use firearms, the same standard should be applied to cannabis users.

Separately, The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit last month He ruled in favor of a federal district court that dismissed an indictment against Jared Michael Harrison, who was indicted in Oklahoma in 2022 after police found cannabis and a gun in his vehicle during a traffic stop.

Now the case has been taken to that lower court, which has determined that the current statute prohibiting “illegal” marijuana users from possessing firearms violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

The lower court relied heavily on its initial decision Interpretation of a judgment of the Supreme Court where courts generally created a higher standard for policies seeking to impose restrictions on gun rights.

The ruling indicates that such restrictions must be consistent with the historical context of the original 1791 ratification of the Second Amendment.

The historical analogs the Justice Department relied on to ensure the ban’s consistency included references to outdated case law preventing Catholics, Loyalists, slaves, and Indians from owning guns.

The circuit court, for its part, said that “the government must show that non-intoxicated marijuana users pose a future risk of harm” to uphold the current policy. “This inquiry, which may involve fact-finding, is best suited to the district court.”

Meanwhile, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, judges recently ruled in favor of medical cannabis patients who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights to own firearms.

as a A recent report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) outlined the current legal landscapeA growing number of federal courts are “finding constitutional problems in applying at least some portions” of the firearms ban.

In a recent ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated defendant’s conviction and remanded the case to the district courtnoting that a retrial before a jury may be necessary to determine whether cannabis made the defendant dangerous or posed a credible threat to others.

The The Third Circuit separately held in a published opinion that district courts must make “individualized judgments” to determine whether 922(g)(3) is constitutional. as applied to private defendants.

—
It’s Marijuana Time tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelic and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters by pledging at least $25/month, you’ll get access to our interactive maps, charts, and audio calendars so you never miss a development.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracking and become a Patreon supporter to gain access
—

Earlier this year, a federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that the ban was unconstitutional as applied to the two defendantswriting that the government failed to establish a “broad” ban on gun ownership by marijuana users based on historical precedent.

A federal judge in El Paso ruled separately late last year that the government is up and running Banning guns from regular marijuana users is unconstitutional in the case of a defendant who previously pleaded guilty. The court allowed the man to withdraw his plea and ordered the charge against him to be dismissed.

The DOJ has asserted it in several federal cases in recent years statute prohibiting cannabis users from owning or possessing firearms it is constitutional because it is consistent with the history of disarming “dangerous” individuals.

In 2023, for example, the Justice Department told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that historical precedent “comfortably” supports the restriction. Gun-toting cannabis users pose a unique danger to society, the Biden administration says, in part because they are doing so. “unlikely” to store weapons properly.

Meanwhile, some states have passed their own laws that further restrict or try to protect gun rights as they relate to marijuana.

A Pennsylvania lawmaker recently introduced a proposed bill remove state barriers to medical marijuana patients carrying firearms.

Colorado activists also tried to place an initiative on the November ballot that would protect the Second Amendment rights of marijuana users in that state, but The campaign signature collection ultimately fell short.

As 2024 drew to a close, The ATF issued a warning to Kentucky residents that is, if they choose to participate the state’s medical marijuana program to be launched immediatelythey will be prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms under federal law.

The official said that while people who already own firearms are “not expected” to become sick of the state’s legal cannabis, those who want to “follow federal law and not violate it” must “make the decision to get rid of those firearms.”

Since then, bipartisan lawmakers have been introduced Legislation that would ask Kentucky’s congressional representatives to change federal law to clarify that medical marijuana users can legally own firearms, although no action has since been taken on that bill.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) said in January that he supported the legislature’s effort to ask the state’s congressional delegation. Call for federal reforms to protect the Second Amendment rights of medical marijuana patientsbut the governor added that he would like to see even more significant changes at the federal level.

Marijuana Moment is made possible with the help of readers. If you rely on our pro-cannabis journalism to stay informed, consider a monthly Patreon pledge.

Cannabis News

Tariffs, visa problems add to cannabis industry issues

Published

6 hours ago

October 23, 2025

admin

The US legal cannabis industry has been suffering for the past two years under an indecisive federal government, and now it’s being squeezed from two unexpected angles: Tariffs and Visas add to the cannabis industry’s misery. For businesses and workers, what once seemed like a fledgling success story is showing more turmoil.

The first blow comes through international trade policy. Many cannabis-related businesses – from vape cartridge manufacturers to packaging suppliers and cultivation equipment importers – rely heavily on foreign inputs, particularly from China. Recent US tariffs on Chinese goods (in some cases raising tariffs to 30-50% or more) have driven up costs, and the impact is hitting herbal players hard.

According to an industry analysis, the cost of producing a typical vape unit is rising by a few cents due to tariffs on hardware and packaging. With thousands of units produced each month, it adds up quickly. Some businesses are absorbing the blow, but others hope the increases will eventually trickle down to consumers or drive buyers back to illegal markets.

What makes this especially tough for cannabis companies: margins are already thin, regulatory burdens are high and the domestic supply chain is not built. Switching providers takes time; It’s even harder to find US-based manufacturers that comply with regulations.

Cannabis News

How to build a cost-efficient cultivation facility in Minnesota

Published

1 day ago

October 22, 2025

admin

Free webinar

With proper planning and design, you can reduce long-term costs, build a high-performing and respectable grow operation, and take advantage of the energy rebates and valuable grower incentives available through Minnesota programs.

Join TSRgrow, CannDelta and the Center for Energy Excellence for a free online masterclass on October 30th at 12:00 PM CT / 1:00 PM EST created for future growers, investors and operators entering Minnesota’s legal cannabis industry.

Whether you’re preparing to apply for a license or build your own space, this session will introduce you to key steps, infrastructure options, and expert-backed strategies to help you build smarter and save money from day one.

What you will learn:

How to plan your facility construction from permits to zoning approvals
Key infrastructure considerations: HVAC, lighting and environmental controls
Ways to reduce startup costs and avoid costly design mistakes
Design strategies for efficiency, scalability, and compliance
Insights into lighting design, energy saving and remote system control
Energy Rebate Programs: How to Unlock Valuable Rebates, Energy Efficiency Audits, and Exclusive Grower Incentives Available in Minnesota
Whether you’re just perfecting your build strategy or not, this masterclass will help you lay a solid foundation for success in the Minnesota adult-use market.

Click here to register

For more information:
TSRgrow
(email protected)
www.tsrgrow.com

Cannabis News

Ohio House Passes Bill To Remove Voter-Approved Marijuana Legalization Protections And Restrict Hemp Market

Published

1 day ago

October 22, 2025

admin

The Ohio House of Representatives has passed a bill that would do just that make significant changes to the state’s voter-approved marijuana legalization law removing several protections for consumers, while also adding some new restrictions on hemp products intended to align the two sectors of the cannabis industry.

After passing through several House committees this week, with major amendments, the House approved Sen. Stephen Huffman’s (R) legislation on a vote of 87-8 on Wednesday.

Although the measure was previously approved by the Senate, it will have to return to that chamber for concurrence, or go to a bicameral conference committee, before going to the governor’s desk.

The House watered down some controversial provisions of the Senate-passed bill, but advocates are concerned that it would still make major changes to the marijuana law voters approve in 2023.

Rep. Brian Stewart (R), who has led the legislation through the House, argued before the vote that the legislation effectively achieves “carefully crafted compromise” among lawmakers with differing views on cannabis issues.

“It’s been very difficult to debate this bill, but most of our important bills usually are. Instead of being some kind of weak-sauce tie-breaker mash-up, this bill does what we claim we want to come to Columbus,” he said. “It tackles the issue head-on. It makes tough decisions. It respects and implements the views of residents and advocates from affected industries. This bill strikes a good balance between Ohioans’ individual liberties, their safety, the financial well-being of our local communities, and the need to protect the health and safety of Ohio’s children.”

Rep. Jamie Callender (R), who sponsored legislation to legalize marijuana before voters passed the reform on the ballot, said the bill is “not perfect,” but argued that lawmakers “must take action” to address intoxicating hemp and other pending issues.

“This is the revised code we’re writing,” he said. “I anticipate that there will be many more bills on these issues in the near and long term, as there should be … I will continue to work with all of them to make it better.”

While its supporters have described it as a less hands-off approach than the original Senate bill, the measure would make significant changes to existing legalization law, with several provisions that advocates say are in direct conflict with the will of voters and represent legislative overreach.

For example, the proposal would eliminate language in the current statute that provides anti-discrimination protections for people who legally use cannabis. It includes safeguards against adverse action in the context of child custody rights, the ability to perform organ transplants, and professional licensing.

It would also recriminalize possession of marijuana from any source other than a state-licensed Ohio dispensary or possession of marijuana from a legal household. Because of this, people can be charged with a felony for carrying cannabis purchased from a legal Michigan store in the Michigan area.

It would also ban the smoking of cannabis in outdoor public places, such as bar patios, and ban landlords from vaping marijuana in rental properties. Violation of this latter policy, even if it involves vaping in a person’s backyard in a rental property, would be a misdemeanor offense.

Karen O’Keefe, director of state policy for the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), said in a letter to House lawmakers on Wednesday that SB 56 today “eliminates key protections of the law enacted by voters and re-criminalizes harmless behaviors that voters legalized.”

“Please reject this erosion of the liberties established by the voters,” he said.

Unlike the Senate-passed version of the bill, the House alternative would send cannabis sales tax revenue to local governments.

The legislation, amended by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, also adds new restrictions on the hemp market. With the exception of beverages, hemp products would only be allowed to be sold in licensed hemp dispensaries.

Stores and breweries would be allowed to sell hemp-derived THC drinks, with new advertising restrictions to avoid appealing to youth. Products for on-premise consumption would be limited to 5 mg of THC, but adults could buy drinks of up to 10 mg to take home. Stronger drinks could also be manufactured in Ohio, but only for sale to people outside the state.

The bill would also include a new $1.20 per liter tax on hemp beverages.

The measure Earlier on Wednesday, the Treasury Board also amended it to clarify that people seeking to have their marijuana possession charges dropped would not have to prove the exact amount of cannabis they possessed. The amendment would also allow for dismissal of dismissed marijuana charges, not just convictions.

The amendment also aligns the beverage cannabinoid policy with the beverage laws and clarifies that the penalties for selling marijuana, hemp beverages or cannabinoid products to a minor would be the same regardless of the type of product.

Wednesday’s House vote comes weeks after the governor issued emergency regulations banning the sale of hemp products for 90 dayswith instructions to the legislature to consider permanent regulations. Last week, however, a county judge ordered the state to enforce that policy in response to a legal challenge.

“Quite frankly, the legislature didn’t take action,” Gov. Mike DeWine (R) said in an interview published this week. “I’m still hopeful that the legislature will step in and take action.”

House Speaker Matt Huffman (R) recently commented on the relative lack of progress on marijuana and hemp legislation since voters approved legalization on the ballot in 2023, highlighting the stark divisions within the Republican caucus.

There are “people who think marijuana should be legalized and regulated,” others who “think hemp products should be on par with everything that happened in the statute that started and then “people, like me, who are prohibitionists, don’t think it should be legalized at all and should be rare,” he said.

“I would say the prohibitionists have lost this debate.”

Meanwhile, last month, the Ohio Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) introduced new proposed rules to underpin the state’s marijuana legalization law. establishing plans to update regulations on labeling and packaging requirements.

The proposal arrived a few weeks later Medical and adult marijuana sales in Ohio officially surpassed $3 billionData from the state Department of Commerce (DOC) shows.

the state About $703 million worth of recreational cannabis was sold in the first year the law was enactedAccording to data from DCC.

In March, a survey of 38 municipalities by the Ohio State University (OSU) Moritz School of Law found local leaders were “unequivocally opposed” to earlier proposals which would have cut planned funding..

Meanwhile, in Ohio, adults can buy more than double the amount of marijuana starting in June than were under previous limits, state officials determined that the market could sustainably supply patients and adult users of medical cannabis.

The governor announced his desire individually in March Marijuana tax revenue to support police training, local jails and behavioral health services. He said funding for police training was a top priority, even if it wasn’t approved by voters in 2023.

Ohio’s Senate President also pushed back against criticism of the Senate bill, claiming that the legislation does not respect the will of the electorate and it would have little effect on the products available in stores.

user photo Philip Steffan.

Marijuana Moment is made possible with the help of readers. If you rely on our pro-cannabis journalism to stay informed, consider a monthly Patreon pledge.