By John Fritze, CNN | 发布于 2026 年 3 月 2 日，美国东部时间下午 1:55
最高法院周一似乎倾向于限制政府剥夺一名经常吸食大麻者的持枪权，但几位大法官也对彻底削弱旨在确保吸毒成瘾者无法接触枪支的 1968 年法律表示警惕。
在近两个小时的辩论中，多数大法官——包括保守派和自由派——都表示，他们认为联邦检察官在指控一名得克萨斯州男子违反禁止“非法药物使用者”持枪的联邦法律时越权了。
图为2026年2月20日星期五，美国华盛顿的美国最高法院。
>
Jose Luis Magana/AP
特朗普政府在为该法律辩护时称，这一禁令类似于殖民时期广泛实施的醉酒法。但这引发了大法官们的一系列难题：哪些药物以及何种用量会使一个人被视为太危险而不能拥有武器。
“约翰·亚当斯每天早餐都喝一杯苹果酒。据报道，詹姆斯·麦迪逊每天喝一品脱威士忌，”保守派大法官尼尔·戈萨奇（Neil Gorsuch）对代表特朗普政府的律师问道，“按照你的理论，他们都是习惯性酗酒者，会被终身剥夺持枪权吗？”
“如果一个人在科罗拉多州根据处方服用‘一颗小熊软糖’（大麻糖），那会怎么样？”戈萨奇追问，“也要终身剥夺他的持枪权吗？”
副检察长莎拉·哈里斯（Sarah Harris）表示，这种情况将属于“习惯性使用者”类别，但政府不太可能起诉。特朗普在 2025 年 12 月签署了一项行政命令，加速大麻的重新分类，这一举措不会使大麻合法化，但会增加对其医疗用途的研究。
此案的核心人物是美国和巴基斯坦双重公民阿里·达尼娅尔·赫马尼（Ali Danial Hemani）。2023 年，他因涉嫌违反联邦反枪支和毒品法被起诉，起诉书仅涉及联邦调查局搜查时发现的一把格洛克 9 毫米手枪和 60 克大麻。
司法部称，赫马尼大约每隔一天就使用一次大麻。
美国总统乔·拜登的儿子亨特·拜登（Hunter Biden）于 2024 年因违反同一项法律被定罪，尽管他的案件涉及的是可卡因成瘾。总统在其任期最后几天赦免了他。
大约一半的美国州已将少量大麻娱乐性使用合法化，支持大麻医疗使用的州比例更高。戈萨奇指出，联邦政府尚未采取行动阻止围绕大麻的法律格局发生变化。
“对于大麻‘有点合法，又有点不合法’，以及联邦政府自身在这个问题上存在矛盾这一事实，我们该如何处理？”戈萨奇问道。
保守派大法官艾米·科尼·巴雷特（Amy Coney Barrett）指出，该法律适用范围远不止大麻，它涵盖任何被联邦政府列为受控物质的药物，包括处方药。
巴雷特问道，如果有人为了帮助伴侣入睡而服用伴侣的处方安眠药（Ambien），即使自己没有处方，政府的定义是否会将其纳入禁止范围？哈里斯承认，政府的定义会涵盖这类人，因为他们是非法使用药物。
“我同意你的观点……立法机构可以进行监管，以防止枪支落入危险人物手中，”巴雷特一度表示。
但当谈到法律执行中涉及的某些药物（包括大麻）时，巴雷特表示，“我在该法律体系中看不到任何反映国会认为这会让某人更危险的内容。”
司法部称，每年只有约 300 人因违反该法律被起诉，定罪可判处 15 年监禁。
罗伯茨的一些反对意见
但少数保守派大法官提出了反对意见，尤其是塞缪尔·阿利托（Samuel Alito）大法官和首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨（John Roberts），他们似乎特别担心法院会对哪些药物具有足够危险性从而剥夺使用者持枪权，或者被指控犯罪的个人是否确实成瘾做出个别裁决。
罗伯茨一度表示，赫马尼的论点“对必要的专业知识和我们留给国会和行政部门关于药物危险性的判断采取了相当轻率的态度”。他说，在每个案件中，“你不能随意重新权衡立法决定。”
代表赫马尼的最高法院资深律师艾琳·墨菲（Erin Murphy）反驳说，如果国会希望对某些药物的使用者全面禁止持枪，政府需要证明在《第二修正案》下，该禁令有历史类比的支持。
周一的大部分辩论都围绕近年来最高法院审理的重大枪支案件确立的标准展开。在 2022 年的一项具有里程碑意义的裁决中，法院简化了美国人公开携带手枪的条件，并要求枪支禁令必须与美国建国初期的法律有某种联系才能经得起《第二修正案》的挑战。两年后的另一项裁决中，法院进一步明确了这一历史测试标准，维持了禁止被限制令认定为有可信安全威胁的人拥有枪支的法律。
如何把握历史类比的“足够性”来证明现代枪支法律的合法性，这一问题继续困扰着下级法院的《第二修正案》案件，也是赫马尼案辩论的核心。自由派大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊（Ketanji Brown Jackson）多次质疑法院在 2022 年确立的历史测试标准的合理性。
“我不明白这一历史测试标准现在还能以何种有意义的方式适用，”杰克逊评价该历史测试时说道。
驳回相关案件
周一早些时候，最高法院拒绝审理一系列质疑同一法律是否可用于禁止因非暴力重罪被定罪的美国人持枪的案件。
法院未加评论地驳回了梅琳达·文森特（Melynda Vincent）的上诉。文森特于 2008 年因在犹他州一家杂货店开具一张 498.12 美元的空头支票而被判违反联邦银行欺诈法，获缓刑。她希望保留枪支用于自保，但联邦禁止重罪犯持枪的法律阻止了她。
过去一年，法院收到了大量关于该问题的上诉，更多案件可能会接踵而至。
在赫马尼案中，得克萨斯州联邦地区法院驳回了对他的指控。保守派占多数的美国第五巡回上诉法院支持了这一裁决，在简短的裁决中指出，历史记录仅显示禁止在被捕时处于积极醉酒或受药物影响状态的人持枪。
法院预计在 2026 年 6 月底之前做出裁决。
Supreme Court signals it will back marijuana user who was charged with owning a gun
By John Fritze, CNN | Published Mar 2, 2026, 1:55 PM ET
The Supreme Court appeared likely Monday to curb the government’s ability to disarm a frequent marijuana user, though several of the justices were also wary of completely undermining a 1968 law that was intended to ensure that Americans addicted to drugs don’t have access to firearms.
Over the course of nearly two hours of argument, a majority of justices — both conservative and liberal — signaled that they believed federal prosecutors overreached when they charged a Texas man with violating a federal law that bars people who are an “unlawful user” of drugs from owning guns.
The U.S. Supreme Court is seen Friday, Feb. 20, 2026, in Washington.
Jose Luis Magana/AP
In defending the law, the Trump administration argued the prohibition was similar to public drunkenness laws that were widely in force during the colonial era. But that kicked off a series of difficult questions from the justices about what types of drugs, and at what amount, would render a person too dangerous to own a weapon.
“John Adams took a tankard of hard cider with his breakfast every day. James Madsion reportedly drank a pint of whiskey every day,” conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch told the attorney representing the Trump administration. “Are they all habitual drunkards who would be property disarmed for life under your theory?”
What if a person takes “one gummy bear with a medical prescription in Colorado?” Gorsuch pressed. “Disarm him for life?”
Sarah Harris, principal deputy solicitor general, said that person would fall under the category of a “habitual user” but that they would not likely be prosecuted. Trump signed an executive order in December to expedite the reclassification of marijuana, a move that would not legalize it but would increase research on medical uses.
The case centers on Ali Danial Hemani, a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan, who was indicted in 2023 on a single count of violating the federal anti-guns-and-drugs law. Though the Justice Department accused Hemani of many things in its appeal last year, his indictment dealt only with an FBI search that turned up a Glock 9mm pistol and 60 grams of pot.
The DOJ said Hemani used marijuana about every other day.
President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was convicted in 2024 of the same law, though that case involved his addiction to crack cocaine. He was later pardoned by the president during his final days in office.
Roughly half of US states have legalized small amounts of marijuana for recreational use and an even higher share of states allow the drug to be used medicinally. And, Gorsuch noted, the federal government has not anything to stop the shifting legal landscape around pot.
“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.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative, noted that the law applies far more broadly than just marijuana. It covers any drug classified by the federal government as a controlled substance, including prescription medications.
Barrett asked whether the government’s definitions would rope in someone who took their partner’s prescription Ambien to help them sleep, even though they did not have a prescription themselves. Harris acknowledged the government’s definitions would cover that person because they were taking the drug illegally.
“I agree with you … that legislatures can regulate to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous peoples,” Barrett said at one point.
But when it comes to some of the drugs at issue in the law’s enforcement, Barrett said, including marijuana, “I just don’t see anything in the scheme that actually reflects Congress’ judgment that this makes someone more dangerous.”
The Justice Department said only about 300 people have been are charged with violating the law annually. A conviction can carry a 15-year prison sentence.
Some pushback from Roberts
But there was some pushback from a few conservatives, particularly from Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, who seemed especially concerned with having courts make individual determinations about which drugs present dangers sufficient to disarm users, or whether individual people charged with a crime are, in fact, addicted.
At one point, Roberts suggested that Hemani’s argument took a “fairly cavalier approach to the necessary consideration of expertise and the judgments we leave to Congress and the executive branch” about the dangerousness of drugs. In each case, he said, “you don’t get to go in and re-weigh the legislative determination.”
Erin Murphy, a veteran Supreme Court attorney representing Hemani, countered that if Congress wants to make a categorical prohibition on gun owners users certain drugs, then the government needs to demonstrate there was some historic analogue to that prohibition under the Second Amendment.
Much of the argument Monday was wrapped up in the standards set by blockbuster gun cases handed down by the Supreme Court in recent years. In a landmark 2022 decision, the court made it easier for Americans to carry handguns in public and required gun prohibitions to have some connection to US founding-era laws to sustain Second Amendment challenges. It then clarified that historical test in a decision two years later, upholding a law that bars people who are the subject of domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns when they have been found to pose a credible safety threat.
The question of how much history is enough to justify a modern gun law continues to complicate Second Amendment cases in lower courts and was central to the debate for Hemani. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a member of the court’s liberal wing, repeatedly seemed to question the wisdom of the historic test the court laid out in 2022 given cases like Hemani’s.
“I don’t understand how this works any more in any meaningful way,” Jackson said of the historic test.
Denies related case
Earlier Monday, the court declined to take up a series of cases questioning whether the same law can be used to bar Americans convicted of non-violent felonies from owning guns.
Without comment, the court declined to hear an appeal from Melynda Vincent, who was convicted in 2008 of violating a federal bank fraud statute for writing a bad check at a Utah grocery store for $498.12 and was sentenced to probation for the crime. She wanted to keep a firearm for protection but the federal law prohibiting felons from having guns prevented her from doing so.
The court has been flooded with appeals on that issue over the past year, and more cases are likely.
In Hemani’s case, a federal district court in Texas dismissed the charge against him. The conservative 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, ruling in a brief decision that the historical record points only to laws that barred guns for Americans who are actively intoxicated or under the influence of drugs at the time of their arrest.
A decision is expected by the end of June.
（注：此处为图片占位符，原文链接：https://example.com/20160609_freeport_sp.jpg）