Under U.S. federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), it is illegal for a person who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess firearms or ammunition. Because marijuana remains classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act, users—even state-legal medical marijuana patients—can run afoul of that prohibition. (This reaches not just people convicted of crimes, but those whose use is merely “unlawful” under federal law.)

That creates a tension: in states like Florida, medical marijuana is legal under state law (via Amendment 2, adopted 2016). Patients use cannabis under state programs—but the federal ban still applies.

Over the years, multiple lawsuits have challenged the constitutionality of applying § 922(g)(3) to medical marijuana patients, arguing it violates their Second Amendment rights (right to keep and bear arms).

The Florida case & the 2025 Appeals Court decision

Lawsuit origins (2022)

In 2022, Florida’s then-Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, along with two medical cannabis patients and a gun owner who also sought to enroll in Florida’s medical marijuana program, filed a suit in the Northern District of Florida challenging the federal prohibition of firearm possession by medical marijuana users. Their claim: that the government is wrongly disarming Floridians who comply with state law but are barred from gun rights under federal law. (The plaintiffs argued they have not committed felonies or been shown to be dangerous; their only “offense” is using medical cannabis in a state-lawful way.) READ MORE: Florida Phoenix

In November 2022, U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor dismissed the case, siding with the federal government’s position that the drug-user ban is constitutional and must override state law. READ MORE: WUSF

The plaintiffs appealed to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Atlanta). Arguments were heard in October 2023. The appeals panel then held the case in abeyance while the U.S. Supreme Court considered other related Second Amendment cases (notably United States v. Rahimi) that might affect legal framework.

2025 Appeals Court ruling: reopening the challenge (August 2025)

On August 20, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit issued a ruling in Florida Commissioner of Agriculture v. U.S. Attorney General that revived the plaintiffs’ challenge. The court vacated the lower court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The panel found that at the motion to dismiss stage (i.e., before full fact-finding), the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that disarming them solely because they are medical cannabis users might violate the Second Amendment. The panel held that the government had not met its burden to demonstrate that disarming them was consistent with the “history and tradition of firearm regulation.”

In particular, the court said the plaintiffs are not “relevantly similar” to felons or dangerous individuals, simply by virtue of medical cannabis use. The government’s arguments — that medical users may mishandle firearms, commit crimes to fund drug use, or be more dangerous due to “drug-induced changes” — were not supported in the complaint’s factual allegations.

Thus, the appeal court’s decision does not yet legalize gun ownership for medical marijuana patients universally—but it forces the lower court and federal government to litigate more fully. READ MORE: Reuters

What the ruling does and doesn’t do

What it does

• Restores plaintiffs’ ability to proceed: The dismissal is vacated; the case is remanded for further factual development (discovery, evidentiary hearings). READ MORE: Florida Phoenix
• Stricter scrutiny on the government: The government must now defend the law under the Second Amendment framework, especially under the Bruen (2022) standard, which requires firearm regulations to align with historical analogues of permissible regulation.
• Opens door to medical cannabis patients asserting gun rights: Other patients in Florida may rely on this decision to press their own claims. READ MORE: Florida Cannabis Information Portal

What it does not do (yet)

• Does not legalize gun ownership outright for medical marijuana patients under federal law. It does not override § 922(g)(3) by itself.
• Does not settle factual issues like whether a given patient is “dangerous” or “actively using.” Those must be litigated.
• Does not limit future appeals or Supreme Court review: The federal government may petition for rehearing or Supreme Court certiorari. Indeed, the government has already requested more time to consider whether to challenge this ruling. READ MORE: Marijuana Moment
• Does not guarantee purchases from licensed dealers: When buying firearms, purchasers must still truthfully fill out ATF Form 4473, which asks whether someone is an “unlawful user of marijuana.” Declaring “no” while using medical cannabis could be viewed as false statement under federal law.

When does any change take effect?

There is no immediate change in law or enforcement simply because of the appeals court ruling. The remand means the case returns to the district court, where discovery, briefing, and possibly trials or evidentiary hearings will occur. Only after those steps—and potential appeals—might a definitive order emerge that allows certain medical marijuana patients to legally own or purchase firearms.

Any real effect depends on how fast the litigation proceeds and whether the government appeals. The Supreme Court or full 11th Circuit could further impact or override this panel ruling.

Broader context & comparisons

• The Eleventh Circuit ruling adds to a growing number of federal and circuit court decisions questioning blanket bans on firearm possession by cannabis users. For example, in U.S. v. Harris (Third Circuit), the appellate court upheld § 922(g)(3) broadly but required individualized determinations of dangerousness instead of automatic disqualification.
• The decision in Florida has been lauded by Second Amendment and cannabis reform advocates, though legal commentators caution that it is a narrow procedural victory, not a full constitutional win.
• The decision also underscores the influence of Bruen (2022) and Rahimi (2024) in reshaping constitutional analyses of gun regulation, including demands that laws be grounded in historically analogous restrictions.
• In Florida, there’s no state statute prohibiting firearm ownership by medical marijuana patients. Under Florida law, nothing in state statutes prevents a medical marijuana cardholder from owning a firearm solely based on their status.

Risks & open questions for patients

• Federal enforcement risk remains: Until the case is resolved, a medical cannabis user who possesses a firearm could still face federal prosecution under § 922(g)(3).
• ATF Form 4473 and buyer honesty: Any attempt to purchase from a federally licensed dealer requires answering questions truthfully. If a buyer claims “no” when regularly using medical cannabis, they may face perjury or false statement charges.
• Case-specific defenses matter: The eventual outcome will likely turn on individual fact patterns—medical use history, behavior, whether the person poses risk, etc.
• Possibility of reversal: The government may appeal the Eleventh Circuit’s decision or seek rehearing, and the U.S. Supreme Court could accept the case and reverse. The legal landscape remains uncertain.
• Variation across circuits: Even if Florida’s circuit allows some gun rights for medical users, other federal circuits may continue enforcing stricter interpretations; federal law is still uniform, but litigation outcomes may differ regionally.

What’s next & what patients should watch

1. District court proceedings: The case will return for fact development (discovery, evidence) and lower court rulings. The timeline depends on court scheduling and logistical delays.
2. Government decisions: The Department of Justice may decide to appeal or vacate certain positions. Already, the Solicitor General and U.S. government have asked for extra time to decide whether to challenge related rulings.
3. Supreme Court possibility: If the case ascends to the Supreme Court, a definitive national ruling on applying § 922(g)(3) to cannabis users could emerge.
4. State & legislative responses: Florida lawmakers may seek to pass state protections (though state law cannot override federal law) or file amicus briefs supporting patients’ rights.
5. Patient caution & legal counsel: Medical marijuana patients interested in firearms should consult legal counsel before acquiring or possessing firearms; caution is essential given the unsettled risk.

In Summary

The August 2025 Eleventh Circuit ruling is a milestone: it reopens a constitutional challenge against the blanket prohibition on firearm possession by medical marijuana users. It recognizes that disarming state-law-compliant patients solely for their cannabis use may not square with the Second Amendment as currently interpreted. But it is not a sweeping victory—nor does it immediately change the law. The real test lies ahead in lower courts, appeals, and possibly the Supreme Court. Until then, Florida patients tread in a legal gray zone: the doors to gun ownership may be nudged open, but the pathway is far from certain.

If you are a Florida medical marijuana patient considering firearm rights, it’s critical to stay updated, act cautiously, and seek experienced legal advice. More on Florida Cannabis: Visit Florida Dispensaries