2026年3月2日 / 美国东部时间下午3:38 / 美联社
最高法院周一似乎有可能放宽一项联邦法律，该法律禁止大麻使用者拥有枪支。这起案件跨越了典型的政治分歧界限。
多数大法官似乎倾向于做出一项狭义的裁决，支持一名德克萨斯州男子——他辩称，仅仅因为他持有枪支并每周吸食几次大麻就被指控犯罪，这是不应该的。
特朗普政府曾请求最高法院根据一项禁止所有非法药物使用者拥有枪支的法律，重新审理对阿里·达尼阿尔·赫马尼（Ali Danial Hemani）的刑事指控。但自由派和保守派大法官似乎都对此持怀疑态度。
“政府有什么证据表明每周吸食几次大麻会使某人变得危险？”保守派大法官艾米·科尼·巴雷特（Amy Coney Barrett）问道。
特朗普政府过去曾要求最高法院推翻其他枪支管制法律，但副首席副检察长莎拉·哈里斯（Sarah Harris）为禁止非法药物使用者持枪的法律辩护，称这是防止枪支落入潜在危险人员手中的合理措施。
不过，大法官尼尔·戈萨奇（Neil Gorsuch）指出，越来越多的州已将大麻合法化，尽管联邦层面仍将其列为非法。“我们该如何处理大麻‘有点非法又有点不非法’，以及联邦政府自身在这一问题上存在矛盾这一事实？”戈萨奇问道。
2022年，戈萨奇是保守派多数派的一员，该法院通过标志性案件“纽约州步枪和手枪协会诉布鲁恩案”（New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen）扩大了持枪权。当时法院裁定，任何枪支法律都必须有坚实的历史传统依据。倾向自由派的大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊（Ketanji Brown Jackson）表示，对大麻使用者的枪支禁令似乎没有坚实的历史根基。“我认为你的论点在布鲁恩案的测试下会不攻自破，”她说。
政府援引了历史上禁止“习惯性酗酒者”拥有枪支的法律，称这是支持该法律的明确历史证据。
但赫马尼的律师艾琳·墨菲（Erin Murphy）表示，这些法律针对的是那些几乎持续酗酒的极端案例。
墨菲指出，如今有许多经常服用大麻软糖作为睡眠辅助的使用者，他们非常有能力就枪支使用做出安全决定。
这起案件形成了一些不寻常的政治联盟。美国公民自由联盟（American Civil Liberties Union）和全国步枪协会（National Rifle Association）都支持赫马尼的案子，大麻合法化组织如NORML也支持他。而另一方则是枪支安全组织，如“为了每个人的安全”（Everytown），该组织通常在第二修正案问题上与特朗普政府立场相反。
然而，一些大法官似乎担心，支持赫马尼的裁决可能会允许更多使用更危险药物的人持有武器，或者要求法院频繁深入考虑某种特定物质所带来的危险程度。
“在我看来，这对我们留给国会和行政部门的专业知识和判断缺乏必要的审慎考量，”首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨（John Roberts）表示。
最高法院预计将在6月底前对本案做出裁决。
Supreme Court seems open to loosening law barring marijuana users from owning guns
March 2, 2026 / 3:38 PM EST / AP
The Supreme Court seemed likely Monday to loosen a federal law that bars marijuana users from owning guns in a case that crossed typical political lines.
A majority of justices appeared to lean toward a narrow ruling in favor of a Texas man who argued he shouldn’t have been charged with a crime just because he owned a gun and smoked marijuana a few times a week.
The Trump administration asked the high court to revive a criminal case against Ali Danial Hemani under a law that bans all illegal drug users from owning guns. But both liberal and conservative justices seemed skeptical.
“What is the government’s evidence that using marijuana a couple of times a week makes someone dangerous?” said conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
The Trump administration has asked the court to strike down other gun control laws in the past, but Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris defended the illegal drug user law as a reasonable measure to keep firearms from potentially dangerous people.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, though, pointed out that a growing number of states have legalized cannabis, though it remains illegal on a federal level. “What do we do with the fact that marijuana is sort of illegal and sort of isn’t, and that the federal government itself is conflicted on this?” Gorsuch said.
He was part of the conservative majority court that expanded gun rights with a landmark case in 2022 known as New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The court said that any gun laws must have a strong grounding in the nation’s historical traditions. Liberal-leaning Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said a ban on firearms for cannabis users didn’t seem to have strong historical roots. “I think your argument sort of falls apart under the Bruen test,” she said.
The government pointed to historical laws that barred “habitual drunkards” from having guns, calling that clear historical evidence in favor of the law.
But an attorney for Hemani, Erin Murphy, said those laws were for extreme cases of people who were almost continuously drunk.
There are many modern cannabis users who regularly take gummies as sleep aids, for example, who are very capable of making safe decisions about firearms, Murphy said.
The case made for some unusual political alliances. The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association both supported Hemani’s case, as did cannabis legalization groups like NORML. On the other side were gun-safety groups like Everytown, which usually finds itself on the other side of the Trump administration on Second Amendment issues.
Some justices, however, appeared concerned that a ruling for Hemani could allow more weapon possession by people who use more dangerous drugs, or require courts to frequently make in-depth considerations about the level of dangerousness presented by a given substance.
“It just seems to me that this takes a fairly cavalier approach to the necessary consideration of expertise and the judgments we leave to Congress and the executive branch,” Chief Justice John Roberts said.
The court is expected to decide the case by the end of June.