WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a case with major implications for the Second Amendment and federal drug laws, the U.S. Solicitor General appointed by President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court for a 30-day extension to decide whether to challenge an appeals court ruling that chips away at the federal gun ban for marijuana users.
The case, United States v. Baxter, centers on Keshon Daveon Baxter, who was caught in Des Moines, Iowa with a loaded pistol and a bag of marijuana in 2023. Federal prosecutors charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), a statute that bars “unlawful users” of controlled substances from possessing firearms.
Baxter fired back with a constitutional challenge, arguing that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and violates the Second Amendment when applied to someone like him—a nonviolent individual not under the influence at the time of arrest. While the district court rejected his claims, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part and ruled that there wasn’t enough evidence to determine whether the ban was constitutional as applied to Baxter’s specific circumstances.
Now the Biden-era ruling is in limbo. Trump’s Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, is weighing whether to escalate the fight to the Supreme Court. In a brief filed on April 18, 2025, Sauer said more time was needed “to assess the legal and practical impact of the court of appeals’ ruling.”
A Crumbling Gun Control Pillar?
This isn’t an isolated incident. Over the past year, multiple federal courts—including in the Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits—have raised serious doubts about the legality of banning gun ownership based solely on marijuana use. Some judges have outright called it unconstitutional, especially when there’s no proof the person was high while carrying a gun.
That’s a big deal. Millions of Americans now legally use marijuana in their states, and under current federal law, they’re stripped of their Second Amendment rights for doing so.
Groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) are paying close attention. “Historically, Americans were only disarmed for being dangerous,” the FPC said in a statement. “There’s no historical precedent for disarming someone just because they used marijuana.”
The FPC and other pro-gun legal groups see Sauer’s extension request as a promising sign that the Trump-aligned DOJ could reverse course and abandon the broad ban on marijuana users’ gun rights altogether.
Political Tensions Simmer
The Biden administration has strongly defended the gun ban, claiming marijuana users are a public safety risk and even linking marijuana use to poor firearm storage and increased suicide risk. Biden’s DOJ has repeatedly leaned on the Supreme Court’s Rahimi decision, which upheld gun restrictions for those under domestic violence restraining orders, to justify § 922(g)(3) enforcement.
In contrast, Trump has sent mixed signals. Once during a speech at a National Rifle Association (NRA) leadership forum he floated the idea that “genetically engineered cannabis” might be linked to mass shootings, his administration’s move to appoint Sauer—and now the hesitation to push this case to the high court—signals potential daylight between the prior rhetoric and present legal strategy.
What’s Next?
If the Supreme Court ultimately takes the case and rules against the government, it could strike down or narrow the use of § 922(g)(3) nationwide—setting a landmark precedent that protects gun rights for law-abiding cannabis users.
The government now has until May 6, unless the extension is granted, to decide whether to file a petition for review. With dozens of other similar challenges making their way through the courts, what happens in Baxter could reshape the legal landscape for gun owners across the country.
Court Finds Gun Ban on Illegal Drug Users is Unconstitutional
U.S. Appellate Court Issues Case on Marijuana Use & Firearm Possession
How do they intend to determine who the offenders are? Secondhand conversation? But the goal is to produce millions of less gun owners.
I honestly don’t know what the statute says, but a 4473 asks if the purchaser is addicted to marijuana or other illegal substance. Using is not the same as addiction. I have a chronic pain condition which I take a controlled substance for, legally prescribed. I never check “yes”, and never will. I have thought about adding legal marijuana to my pain control regimen, but this question concerns me. I’d love to see it cleared up. In my police career, I saw plenty of killings, shootings, knifings, bludgeonings and beatings that were alcohol connected, but can’t remember one where pot… Read more »
It’s called government over reach and infringement and it’s time it stops .
This seems to be a matter of one man’s law is another’s prohibition. Anytime the issue of gun rights is mixed in with another hot button issue things get complicated and divisive. All these comments come from people that strongly support gun rights but with the matter of drug use mixed in, they divide into two separate camps. Is it not hypocritical to argue that we should all have the right to self defense but at the same time discriminate against drug users and say they should not be able to possess the means to defend themselves and their families… Read more »
Despite our mixed opinions here on the legality and usage of MJ, the important part of this case is drawing a line on gun prohibition. A logical progression would be the receipt of a speeding ticket identifies you as a danger to society and reason to disqualify you from having 2A rights. Better to say that even smoking dope is insufficient cause. Minor squabbles should follow suit.
big laugh, the one thing the liberals got right
I did not read all the comments, but I will state that if the Government can assault me based on their predictive power, then I should be able to do the same to them.
HLB
18 USC 922 (g)(3) is unconstitutional on it’s face and void under Bruin. The framers, including Washington grew and used marijuana. There is no analogous law from the founding era nor any prohibitions until the 1930’s which is 80 years past the founding era that the court has said is the determinant for evaluating the Second Amendment , The courts and the AG’s should stop wringing their authoritarian hands and persecuting Americans in their quest to disarm us, render us manageable and steal everything else that isn’t nailed down. The supremes should quit slow walking Second Amendment cases and grow… Read more »
I think drugs should be banned, including marijauna. But, it’s legal in many states. And, unless someone’s been to court, and sent to prison or an insane asylum, then they should have their rights… Including 2A.
If he’d been busted with a gun and a flask of whiskey – or any “open container” – they’d’ve arrested him & taken his gun, too, even if he had no alcohol in his system.
I’m all for gun rights but I have to draw the line at potheads and other junkies: they clearly demonstrate a dangerous immaturity and a suspect decision-making process that should preclude them possessing anything that might be dangerous to other people. My now 36 year-old son won’t get my guns when I croak because he refuses to grow-up and ditch the pot.