President Donald Trump’s administration is sending mixed signals on the future of federal marijuana policy, leaving a $32 billion legal cannabis industry, gun rights advocates, and millions of Americans in a state of uncertainty as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to weigh in on key cases. At the heart of the matter are two Supreme Court cases—USA v. Hemani and Canna Provisions v. Bondi—that could reshape how marijuana is treated under federal law and whether users can exercise their Second Amendment rights.
On August 21, 2025, Trump’s Justice Department attorneys readied their defense of federal marijuana prohibition and their argument for limiting marijuana users’ firearm rights before the Supreme Court, according to MJBizDaily. This comes just a week after Trump publicly pledged to “give serious consideration” to a Biden-era proposal to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous substance under federal law, a move that could have sweeping effects for businesses, researchers, and consumers. Yet, the administration’s actions in court and its cabinet appointments—such as an anti-cannabis DEA chief—have left industry observers scratching their heads.
“Some people like it, some people hate it,” Trump said on August 14, 2025, as reported by Newsday. “Some people hate the whole concept of marijuana. It does bad for the children. It does bad for people who are older than children. It’s a very complicated subject, as you know, the subject of marijuana. I’ve heard great things having to do with medical. And I’ve heard bad things having to do with just about everything else.”
This ambivalence is mirrored in the administration’s legal posture. In USA v. Hemani, the Justice Department is appealing to the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court decision that sided with a Texas man, Ali Danial Hemani, who was charged with unlawfully possessing a pistol because he regularly used marijuana. The appellate court found that the nation’s history of gun regulation does “not support disarming a sober person solely on past substance use,” a ruling that the Trump DOJ wants reversed. The government argues that laws historically restricted the rights of habitual drinkers and drug users, even when sober, and that the federal restriction on gun ownership by drug users is a crucial tool in reducing gun violence. The law in question has been used in hundreds of prosecutions each year and is second only to felon and fugitive bans in blocking gun sales, according to filings cited by USA Today.
Yet, the administration’s defense of this ban is notable for its contrast with its otherwise strong support for gun rights. In other cases, the Trump Justice Department has sided with gun owners, such as declining to appeal a lower court’s ruling against the federal minimum age for handgun ownership. But when it comes to the intersection of marijuana use and gun rights, anti-drug policies seem to take precedence. “In some sense, when those two areas are colliding—gun rights and anti-drug policies—it looks like anti-drug policies are going to win out,” Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, told USA Today.
Legal experts say that even if marijuana is rescheduled as a Schedule III drug, as Trump is considering, it is unlikely to help cases like Hemani’s. Schedule III drugs, which include substances like ketamine and anabolic steroids, can only be obtained via prescription and require FDA approval. As Dr. June Chin, chief medical officer of the New York State Office of Cannabis Management, explained to Newsday, “It allows researchers to get cannabis products from licensed producers more easily. They can conduct clinical trials, and this leads to better data on safety, efficacy and dosing.” However, for users, federal law would still prohibit firearm possession if marijuana remains a controlled substance, even at Schedule III.
The cannabis industry, meanwhile, is watching closely. Gahrey Ovalle, president of the Cannabis Coalition of Long Island, described rescheduling as “common sense reform.” He told Newsday, “I think it’s an issue that needs to be resolved, and we’re moving toward that, albeit glacially. We think it’s about time and long overdue.” For dispensary owners like Dave Tubens of Planet Nugg, the potential change could be a game-changer. “Obviously, from a banking standpoint, it really helps us out big time,” Tubens said. Many dispensary owners, including Paul Lepore of Happy Days Dispensary, report high banking fees and customer confusion due to cash-only policies. “Reclassifying would allow customers to shop like normal consumers,” Lepore said, highlighting the potential for credit card use and more mainstream banking services.
Rescheduling would also allow cannabis businesses to claim normal tax deductions, currently prohibited under IRS rules for Schedule I and II substances. “If cannabis is reclassified as Schedule III, it will remove the restrictions for cannabis businesses such as dispensaries, allowing them to deduct normal operating expenses,” Dr. Chin noted. This could ease financial burdens and level the playing field for legitimate businesses.
Researchers stand to benefit as well. Dr. Jarid Pachter, a physician at Stony Brook Medicine specializing in addiction medicine, pointed out that “the data is limited. The studies so far have been restricted, and the angle on most of them have been to find negatives associated with cannabis. To change it to Schedule III, it could potentially open the door to study edibles and other products from dispensaries for potential medicinal use.”
But not everyone in the industry is optimistic. Some, like Dave Falkowski of Open Minded Organics, worry that rescheduling could pave the way for large pharmaceutical companies to buy out smaller operators. “Rescheduling is not necessarily a good thing for the smaller, independent operators,” Falkowski said. Tubens echoed this concern, noting that it could “open up the opportunity for big investors to come into the market,” creating “a lot of uncertainty for the little guys.”
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s docket may soon include Canna Provisions v. Bondi, a case brought by Chicago-based Verano Holdings and Massachusetts co-plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of federal marijuana prohibition under the Controlled Substances Act. The Supreme Court granted their counsel, David Boies, until October 2025 to file a petition. If heard, it would be the first time since 2005 that the high court has considered the constitutionality of marijuana prohibition, according to MJBizDaily.
Legal observers caution against reading too much into the Justice Department’s litigation stance as a signal of broader policy direction. “Litigation is not necessarily a policy signal,” said Hirsh Jain, co-founder of Ananda Strategy and a lecturer at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “DOJ attorneys are obligated to defend statutes on the books, while administrative agencies through the rulemaking process fashion new policies. Decisions around rescheduling appear to be unfolding on a separate administrative and political track than major litigation.”
As the nation awaits the Supreme Court’s decisions and Trump’s next move, the future of cannabis policy remains up in the air. The stakes are high—not just for dispensary owners and researchers, but for millions of Americans whose livelihoods, health, and rights hang in the balance.
