Ninth Circuit says federal drug-user gun ban still stands after Supreme Court’s marijuana ruling

Federal law already barred gun possession by anyone who is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, a controlled substance. On October 13, 2026 the Ninth Circuit, the federal appeals court covering California, reaffirmed that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is constitutional on its face and refused to hear this defendant’s individual challenge because he barely argued it.

Sources checked October 20, 2026. Educational information only, not legal advice.

What changed	The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that the federal drug-user gun ban is facially constitutional after the Supreme Court’s narrow 2026 marijuana ruling, and treated the defendant’s individual challenge as waived.
Effective	October 13, 2026, when the published opinion issued. No new statute or regulation.
Applies to	Federal prosecutions in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, for possessing a firearm while an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance.
Statutory basis	18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3); United States v. Stennerson, 150 F.4th 1276 (9th Cir. 2025); United States v. Hemani, 608 U.S. 772 (2026).

What happened

On October 13, 2026, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a published opinion in United States v. Youngblood, No. 24-7629, affirming a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). That statute bars firearm possession by anyone who is “an unlawful user of” or “addicted to” a controlled substance. The defendant was arrested in Kalispell, Montana, in September 2023; officers found fentanyl pills on him and two pistols, drug paraphernalia and suspected methamphetamine in his car.

The panel first relied on its own 2025 decision in United States v. Stennerson, which held § 922(g)(3) facially constitutional because, at minimum, disarming “presently intoxicated” people is consistent with the national tradition of firearm regulation. It then had to decide whether the Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in United States v. Hemani displaced that ruling. In Hemani, the Court held the statute unconstitutional as applied to a person who “used marijuana ‘about every other day,'” but described that holding as a “narrow one” that did “not address efforts to ban … those presently intoxicated[] from possessing a firearm.”

Judge Tallman wrote that Stennerson‘s “reasoning and theory are not clearly irreconcilable with Hemani,” so the earlier decision remains good law. The opinion’s operative sentence: “Because Stennerson remains binding on this court post-Hemani and Youngblood has waived his as-applied challenge, we affirm.” On the individual, or as-applied, claim, the court observed that the opening brief devoted a single sentence to it and held the argument waived.

What it means for you

The case came from Montana, but it matters in California because the Ninth Circuit’s reading of this federal statute governs federal prosecutions in this circuit. The opinion created no new federal restriction and changed no California law; the state’s own licensing, purchase and carry rules are untouched by it.

What it settles, for now, is that a broad facial challenge to § 922(g)(3) fails in this circuit. If the statute is valid at least as to people who are intoxicated while possessing a firearm, a court will not strike it down for everyone. What it does not settle is how the ban applies to a particular person. The Supreme Court’s marijuana holding was expressly narrow, and the Ninth Circuit declined to resolve any individual challenge here because the defendant did not argue one specifically and distinctly.

For readers, that means an as-applied challenge is not something a court will construct from the facts of a case or from a general assertion that the person was nonviolent. It has to be pleaded and briefed as its own argument. California permits marijuana use by adults and patients, but marijuana remains a controlled substance under federal law, and this opinion does not resolve how the federal ban applies to a state-legal user beyond leaving a properly raised individual challenge open. Anyone facing a charge or a prohibited-person question should consult a lawyer about their own record and conduct rather than rely on this summary.

The official source