Supreme Court Limits Congress, Upholds Gun Rights for Marijuana Users

The Supreme Court issued rulings this month that narrow the reach of two federal statutes enacted by Congress while unanimously protecting gun ownership by regular marijuana users. These decisions arrive as the justices prepare to rule on whether President Trump’s 2025 executive order can deny birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants under the 14th Amendment.

In Cisco Systems v. Doe, the Court held that the Alien Tort Statute does not authorize federal courts to create new causes of action for violations of international law beyond the narrow set recognized at the founding. Justice Barrett’s majority opinion closed the door left open in the 2004 Sosa decision. Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing the ruling overruled Sosa without acknowledgment.

In Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, the Court ruled that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act does not permit damages suits against state prison officials in their personal capacities. Justice Gorsuch wrote that the statute functions as a contract between the federal government and the state, binding only parties that explicitly accepted its terms. Justice Jackson dissented, joined by the other liberal justices.

The same week, the Court unanimously sided with Ali Hemani, a Texas man prosecuted for possessing a firearm while using marijuana several times a week. The justices rejected the government’s attempt to equate periodic cannabis use with historical laws targeting “habitual drunkards.” The ruling leaves open prosecutions where additional evidence shows a threat to public safety.

A separate case, Trump v. Barbara, challenges the executive order that withholds citizenship from children born after February 20, 2025, when at least one parent lacks lawful permanent status. Oral arguments occurred April 1; a decision is expected by early July, near the nation’s 250th anniversary. Lower courts blocked the order nationwide pending review.

The three decided cases turned on statutory text, historical analogues, and separation-of-powers principles rather than direct constitutional interpretation of executive authority.