In a significant development, the U.S. Supreme Court returned a pivotal case regarding gun rights for marijuana users to a lower court after a relevant ruling in a different Second Amendment case.

The decision to remand several gun cases to the lower courts follows the ruling in the United States v. Rahimi case. That case involved a provision of a federal gun-control law that prohibits individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms, which is similar to the drug prohibition that Hunter Biden was found guilty of violating.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), has long equated marijuana users with being mentally ill and deemed unfit to safely own and operate firearms.

Tuesday’s ruling affects several cases, including the ban on gun ownership for marijuana users, noted Marijuana Moment, which first reported the Supreme Court decision.

The cases heading back to lower levels include at least one related to the cannabis ban. The DOJ is now arguing the Supreme Court decision “undermines” a federal court’s ruling last year that deemed the prohibition for marijuana consumers to be unconstitutional. This move further cements the government’s authority to impose firearm restrictions on specific groups for community safety.

Historically, the Second Amendment has been a fiercely protected right, with landmark cases reiterating the individual’s right to possess firearms under specific circumstances. Yet, federal courts have issued mixed rulings on the constitutionality of prohibiting marijuana users from owning guns, with several rulings against the ban.

These discrepancies have prompted the DOJ to seek clarity from higher courts, insisting that existing laws reflect longstanding practices of regulating gun ownership among individuals who pose a risk to themselves or others and is consistent with the country’s history of disarming “dangerous” individuals.

That said, these ongoing legal debates not only reflect the evolving interpretation of the Second Amendment but also underscore the tension between state-level marijuana legalization and federal statutes. As these cases return to the lower courts, they are set to redefine the boundaries of gun ownership and cannabis use.

Driving that point home, the DOJ wrote the following in a letter to the Fifth Circuit.

“Three longstanding regimes support the government’s authority to disarm those whose unlawful use of illegal intoxicants presents a heightened risk of harm to themselves or others: historical laws regulating firearm possession and use by those under the influence of alcohol, historical practices disarming categories of individuals whose firearm possession presented a special danger to themselves or others, and historical restrictions on firearm possession by the mentally ill.”