Drug use under medical supervision may not disqualify citizens of the right to bear arms, a federal appeals court has ruled, calling the federal prohibition on medical marijuana users a violation of their Second Amendment rights. 

A three-judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit unanimously ruled last week that the prohibition is not “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” 

The judge who wrote the opinion, Elizabeth Branch, said, “When viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the allegations in the operative complaint do not lead to the inference that the plaintiffs are comparatively similar to either felons or dangerous individuals—the two historical analogues the Federal Government offers in its attempt to meet its burden.”

The 2020 case Cooper v. Attorney General was spawned by a lawsuit filed by the then-Florida commissioner of agriculture, Nikki Fried, who sued to challenge the federal law that makes it a felony for an “unlawful user” of “any controlled substance” to own a firearm. Ms. Fried, a Democrat, argued that Florida residents should not have to choose between owning a firearm for self-defense and being able to use medical marijuana, as is allowed in the Sunshine State, though it is still federally prohibited. 

The federal government argued that medical marijuana users should not be able to enjoy their Second Amendment rights because they are not “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” 

Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, voiced support for the lawsuit. In 2022, a spokesman for Mr. DeSantis said, “On principle: The governor stands for protecting Floridians’ constitutional rights—including 2nd Amendment rights. Floridians should not be deprived of a constitutional right for using a medication lawfully.” 

During the 2024 primary campaign, the governor said, “If you’re using a legal product, I don’t see how that can nullify a constitutional right.”

In 2022, a federal district court judge dismissed the lawsuit. Ms. Fried appealed to the 11th Circuit; however, after departing office in 2023, she was removed from the case as a plaintiff, leaving two Florida residents who are medical marijuana users who want to buy guns, Vera Cooper and Nicole Hansell, and a retired police officer who owns a gun and wants to use medical marijuana but not give up his firearm, Neill Franklin, as remaining plaintiffs. 

In its ruling this month, the 11th Circuit disagreed with the government’s argument that plaintiffs should not be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights, writing, “While there is a history and tradition in this nation of disarming convicted felons, nothing … indicates that Cooper and Hansell have ever been convicted of any crime, let alone a felony.”

“Nor are there any allegations that they are engaging in felonious conduct. The only crime that the [government] plausibly alleges Cooper and Hansell have committed at this stage is simple possession of a controlled substance, which is a misdemeanor,” Judge Branch said. 

Even if there were felony charges against the plaintiffs, Judge Branch said, “Felon dispossession laws require an individual to be convicted of a felony before they lose their Second Amendment right.” 

She also disagreed with the government’s argument that the plaintiffs “endanger public safety in multiple ways” and might “mishandle firearms—or use firearms to commit crimes—because of drug-induced changes in physiological functions, cognitive ability, and mood.”

Judge Branch said that the government failed to provide evidence that supports its concerns about the plaintiffs being a danger to public safety. 

“The factual allegations, construed in the light most favorable to Cooper and Hansell, do not lead to an inference that they, because they are medical marijuana users, can fairly be labeled as dangerous,” Judge Branch said. “Because both of the Federal Government’s historical analogues fail at the motion to dismiss stage, we conclude it has failed to meet its burden of establishing that the challenged laws and regulations as applied to medical marijuana users are consistent with this Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation.”

The appeals court’s ruling cited the Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, which stated that gun restrictions must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Last year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that marijuana users in Texas cannot be prosecuted for violating the ban on users of controlled substances owning firearms. 

A lawyer for the Florida plaintiffs, William Hall, said in a statement, “As we have argued from the beginning of this case, the 2nd Amendment does not permit the federal government to categorically deem all medical marijuana patients to be too dangerous to exercise their core constitutional rights.”

Ms. Fried also celebrated the decision, saying in a statement, “This is a huge win for freedom. No medical cannabis patient should have to choose between their rights to their medicine or their right to bear arms.”

The Department of Justice did not comment on the ruling. President Trump said in an August 11 news conference that he was considering rescheduling marijuana to a Schedule III classification, which suggests the drug has a “moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence” or abuse, compared to Schedule I drugs, where it is now classified.