While federal law has long forced medical marijuana patients to surrender their gun rights, a federal appeals court has now challenged that restriction in a unanimous ruling that could reshape the landscape for cannabis users nationwide.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a decisive blow to the federal government’s position in August 2025, vacating a lower court’s dismissal and breathing new life into a constitutional challenge that began in Florida.
The legal battle traces back to 2022 when then-Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried joined medical marijuana patients in suing the federal government. Their target: 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits any “unlawful user” of controlled substances from owning firearms, even those using cannabis legally under state medical programs. Florida voters had approved medical marijuana through a constitutional amendment in 2016, creating a glaring conflict between state and federal law.
The federal prohibition fundamentally forces patients into an impossible choice. Use legally prescribed medical cannabis and forfeit Second Amendment rights, or maintain gun ownership while abandoning doctor-recommended treatment. The plaintiffs argued this constitutes an unconstitutional burden that contradicts both state law and fundamental rights.
Federal prosecutors defended the ban by drawing comparisons to historical restrictions on “dangerous” individuals like felons and the mentally ill. They maintained that marijuana users pose similar public safety risks. The appellate panel wasn’t buying it. The contrast is especially stark considering that in Canada, Cannabis Act legalization has allowed adults to possess cannabis since 2018 without similar firearms restrictions. The three-judge panel found medical marijuana patients are not “comparatively similar” to historically dangerous groups who faced firearm restrictions.
The court applied the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen standard, which requires gun restrictions to align with America’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. Judges concluded the government failed to demonstrate any relevant historical precedent for disarming individuals based on lawful medical marijuana use under state authority. The ruling stated the government must prove marijuana users “pose a risk of future danger” to justify restricting their constitutional rights.
This decision doesn’t immediately overturn the federal ban. Marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance federally. However, it revives the constitutional challenge and forces further legal proceedings that could ultimately reshape federal policy. The ruling currently applies only within the 11th Circuit, covering Florida and neighboring states. The case includes plaintiffs like retired law enforcement officer Neill Franklin, highlighting how the restrictions affect diverse groups of legal cannabis users. Since 2015, Congress has consistently approved a spending rider that prevents the Justice Department from interfering with state medical marijuana programs, further complicating the federal government’s position.
Other federal courts have begun considering similar challenges, suggesting this Florida case might be the opening salvo in a broader legal campaign. As medical marijuana programs expand nationwide, the tension between state-authorized cannabis use and federal gun restrictions continues intensifying, potentially setting up future Supreme Court intervention.
