Eleventh Circuit rules federal prohibition of gun possesion by medical marijuana users problematic under Second Amendment

An Eleventh Circuit panel issued a notable Second Amendment ruling yesterday in Florida Commissioner of Agriculture, et al. v. Attorney General of the United States, et al., No. 22-13893 (11th Cir. Aug. 20, 2025) (available here).  Though the case is in a preliminary procedural posture, the panel discussion of Second Amendment law after Bruen and Rahimi is significant. Here is how the case begins:

“[W]hen the Government regulates arms-bearing conduct . . . it bears the burden to justify its regulation.” United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680, 691 (2024) (quotations omitted). In this case, two Florida medical marijuana users who wish to purchase guns and one gun owner who wishes to participate in Florida’s medical marijuana program brought a pre-enforcement action seeking declaratory relief that 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3) and (g)(3), which prohibit unlawful drug users from possessing or being sold firearms, are unconstitutional as applied to them.  The district court, applying the framework first established in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and built on in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), dismissed the complaint. After assuming that plaintiffs were among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment, the district court conducted Bruen’s history-and-tradition test to determine if the challenged statutes were similar to historical gun regulations. The district court concluded that the laws and regulations at issue in this case were consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation and therefore did not violate the Second Amendment.

After holding oral argument, we held this case in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Rahimi and ordered supplemental briefing on Rahimi’s effect on this case.  After careful review, we hold that the district court erred in concluding that the plaintiffs did not state a claim for relief.  We reach this conclusion because, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the allegations in the operative complaint do not lead to the inference that the plaintiffs are comparatively similar to either felons or dangerous individuals — the two historical analogues the Federal Government offers in its attempt to meet its burden.  We therefore vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Some months ago, this Law360 article details the many jurisdictions in which courts are struggling with the interplay of Second Amendment rights and uncertain originalist jurosprudence and modern gun control laws that incorporate various drug prohibitions.  This new Eleventh Circuit ruling serves as another reminder that these issues are likely to continue to churn in lower courts until there is some additional Supreme Court  guidance.