Whether a federal statute prohibiting unlawful users of controlled substances from possessing firearms violates the Second Amendment when applied to medical marijuana users who do not pose a demonstrable danger

No question identified. : 2 writ of certiorari will expire on November 18, 2025. The jurisdiction of this Court would be invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). 1. Respondents Vera Cooper, Nicole Hansell, and Neill Franklin are Florida residents who use (or wish to use) medical marijuana. App., infra, 6a. They brought this civil suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, claiming that 18 U.S.C. 922(g) (3), the statute that prohibits unlawful users of controlled substances from possessing firearms, violates the Second Amendment as applied to them. App., infra, 6a. The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss the suit. App., infra, 27a-48a. The court determined that Section 922(g) (3) complies with the Second Amendment because it falls within “the historical tradition of disarming those who engage in criminal activity.” Id. at 42a. The court also determined that “the historical tradition of keeping guns from those the government 7 fairly views as dangerous,” such as “alcoholics and the mentally ill,” “provides another justification for upholding” the statute. Id. at 44a. 2. The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded. App., infra, la-26a. The court concluded that the government had failed to show that “disarming medical marijuana users is consistent with this Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. at lla. The court of appeals first rejected the government’s reliance on “the Nation’s history and tradition of disarming ‘those engaged 3 in criminal conduct,’” explaining that the use of medical marijuana is “a misdemeanor, not a felony,” and that the government “has not pointed to any historical tradition of disarming those engaged in misdemeanant conduct.” App., infra, 19a. The court then rejected reliance on the “history and tradition of disarming individuals 7 [the government] fairly deems as dangerous,” observing that the complaint “contains no allegations regarding either the frequency of use or effects that consumption of marijuana has on [respondents] -or other medical marijuana users.” Id. at 2la-22a. The 7 court stated that “the factual allegations,” viewed “in the light most favorable” to respondents, “do not lead to an inference that they, because they are medical-marijuana users, can fairly be labeled as dangerous.” Id. at 23a. The court of appeals accordingly concluded that the government had failed to meet its burden “at the motion to dismiss stage.” App., infra, 25a. It remanded the case to the district court, stating that the government “very well may prove at a later stage of litigation, after development of a factual record,” that Section 922(g) (3) complies with the Second Amendment as applied to respondents. Id. at 26a n.16. 3. The Solicitor General has not yet determined whether to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in this case. The additional time sought in this application is needed to continue consultation within the government and to assess the legal and practical impact of the court of appeals’ ruling. Additional time is 4 also needed, if a petition is authorized, to permit its preparation and printing. Respectfully submitted. D. JOHN SAUER Solicitor General NOVEMBER 2025