Tag: government overreach

Alberta woman hauled before human rights tribunal for opposing rainbow crosswalk

George Orwell wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four nearly 80 years ago as a warning about totalitarianism. The novel’s true horror isn’t censorship — it’s compelled speech. In the book’s climax, the rebellious Winston Smith is sent to the Ministry of Love, where torture is used to force him to agree that an obvious falsehood is the truth. Asked how many fingers his tormentor is holding up, the correct answer isn’t four or five — it’s whatever the party says it is.

Nineteen Eighty-Four was fiction. But in 2026, examples of compelled speech in Canada are not hard to find.

Take the claim that a mass grave of Indigenous children sits at a former residential school in Kamloops, B.C. — a claim unsupported by any forensic evidence to date. Simply asking questions about it, or declining to wear an orange shirt on September 30, is enough to be branded a denier and an enemy of reconciliation. Merely questioning the official Kamloops narrative could one day be treated as a criminal matter.

Then there’s gender identity, where a person born with a penis is a man and a person born with a vagina is a woman — a statement now considered controversial enough to invite official sanction. A U.S. Supreme Court justice, asked to define the word “woman,” could not do it. And in Canadian institutions, a man who says he identifies as a woman is now entitled to compete against women in sports, shower in women’s changerooms, and be housed in women’s prisons. Object, and expect to be labelled a hater, a bigot, and a transphobe.

Canada has no Ministry of Love, and no torture chambers. But there is more than one way to enforce conformity, and a case headed to the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal on September 14 shows how it’s done.

Westlock, Alberta, resident Benita Pedersen — a DJ, children’s entertainer, and event coordinator — is facing a human rights complaint over a flyer she handed out three years ago opposing a proposed rainbow crosswalk incorporating the colours of the transgender pride flag. According to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom, Pedersen’s flyer stated facts, including the potential for infertility following gender transition, and encouraged residents to contact their elected representatives if they shared her concerns.

On June 19, 2023, local resident Laurie Hodge filed a complaint against Pedersen under the Alberta Human Rights Act, alleging the flyer constituted discrimination based on gender, gender expression, and gender identity. Hodge was not on Westlock town council at the time. Both women ran in a January 2024 by-election; Pedersen finished second, Hodge third — though Hodge was later elected to council in a subsequent vote. Whether the complaint was ever really about a crosswalk, or about eliminating a political rival, is a fair question.

The Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission has since taken carriage of the complaint on Hodge’s behalf and referred it to the Tribunal under Section 3 of the Act, which bars publications likely to expose people to hatred based on protected characteristics. The Director is expected to call an expert witness to testify that failing to paint the crosswalk could cause physical and mental harm to transgender and marginalized youth. Pedersen, in turn, must rely on evidence from an endocrinologist and a psychiatrist specializing in gender dysphoria simply to defend a flyer about a paint scheme. In May, the Director moved to exclude most of Pedersen’s witnesses as irrelevant; the Tribunal denied that motion in July.

“Albertans should be free to express their opinions on controversial topics without being accused of hatred and discrimination,” said constitutional lawyer Allison Pejovic of the Justice Centre.

Pedersen’s case is not isolated. The Supreme Court of British Columbia has granted four organizations intervenor status in nurse Amy Hamm’s appeal of a March 2025 disciplinary ruling by the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives, which found her guilty of unprofessional conduct over online statements she made about sex, gender, and sex-based rights between 2018 and 2021. In a decision released September 8, Justice J. Hughes granted standing to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C., West Coast LEAF, Egale Canada, and the Association for Reformed Political Action Canada (ARPA), while dismissing an application from the Vancouver Lesbian Collective. ARPA is expected to argue that criticizing gender identity theory does not amount to discrimination or hatred. Hamm’s appeal is scheduled to be heard in Vancouver this November.

The reach of compelled speech isn’t limited to tribunals and regulators. In 2024, David was covering a story on Ash Davis, a biological male competing on the Fergus Highlanders women’s rugby team, when Ontario Provincial Police officers threatened him with arrest simply for asking questions on a public sports field. Later that same day, while conducting consensual interviews with spectators in the stands — not on the field, not interfering with play — police made good on the threat and arrested him. 

All of this unfolds while southern Ontario endures a record crime wave, raising the obvious question of what, exactly, police resources are being prioritized for.

Keep reading

A Secretive DHS ‘Predictive Policing’ Unit is Analyzing Americans’ Financial Habits and Pulling Them Over

Border Patrol is running secretive predictive policing units that analyze Americans’ financial activity and other data, then feed that intelligence to local police who pull people over who are not suspected of any specific crime, but which the government thinks may be worth searching, 404 Media has found.

The units, the name of which 404 Media is revealing here for the first time, are called Predictive Intelligence Targeting Teams (PITT). In one case, a PITT analyzed the financial activity of a man who was driving across Montana, and local authorities stopped him under the pretense of an obstructed license plate and charged him with a DUI.

404 Media identified one PITT in the Spokane Sector, Washington, which polices the U.S. border with Canada, and another in the Laredo Sector, Texas, which polices the border with Mexico. The findings add to an Associated Press investigation from last year which found Border Patrol was using automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) as part of the same wide-spanning predictive policing program.

“The bottom line is genuine probable cause cannot be synthetically generated,” Jake Laperruque, deputy director of the Security and Surveillance Project at the Center For Democracy & Technology, told 404 Media in an email. Here Border Patrol seems to be “using parallel construction to cloak the reason behind its car stops in secrecy. If we can’t meaningfully review and evaluate these systems, we can’t trust them,” he added.

Predictive policing is a highly controversial practice that police departments and federal agencies are increasingly turning to. The practice is designed to find people who may have committed crimes, but at the moment, no evidence of them doing so exists. Broadly, law enforcement may analyze data — such as a person’s movements, where they are at a certain time, or the roads they drive — then create or find another pretense to pull them over.

At around 9:30pm one night in May, Kyle William Olson was driving his black Chevy SUV on Interstate 90, with his dog Ducky in the backseat, according to police reports and an interview Olson gave to 404 Media. In Olson’s vehicle were marijuana edibles, marijuana cuttings, and butane hash oil. He works on a licensed cannabis farm in California, where he had picked up the weed, and was transporting it home to Wisconsin, he told 404 Media.

Olson drove past Sergeant James Beck of the Montana Highway Patrol who was sitting in his police car along with a colleague. When Olson passed, Beck noticed the vehicle’s license plate was obstructed by what he described as a tinted cover and the luggage holder, according to a police report. Beck pulled out, caught up to Olson, and pulled him over.

“Nothing major,” Beck said once he approached the passenger side window and exchanged pleasantries with Olson, according to bodycam footage. Beck said Olson’s license plate was “a little bit obstructed.”

“Just so you know, that’s our reason for stopping you,” Beck said. In the end, the officers demanded Olson step out of the vehicle, they tested his blood and charged him with a DUI. Authorities later charged Olson with possession with intent to distribute because of the marijuana in his vehicle, Olson told 404 Media.

But that wasn’t the real reason for stopping Olson.

During discovery in his case, Olson was provided a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) document that explained how Border Patrol instigated his traffic stop. Written by Border Patrol Agent Matthew Phelps, the document said Phelps was assigned to the “Spokane Sector Border Patrol Targeting & Intelligence Division (TID) — Predictive Intelligence Targeting Team (PITT).” Olson shared the document with 404 Media.

Keep reading

Mom Rages After Pennsylvania Borough Criminally Charges Her 10- and 12-Year-Old Daughters Over a Broken Playground Swing — Then Threatens to SUE After the Judge Throws the Case Out

The girls were hauled into court after their mother refused to pay a repair bill without first seeing evidence that her daughters intentionally damaged the swing.

This is bureaucratic insanity.

Two young sisters, ages 10 and 12, were criminally charged after a playground swing broke while they were playing with other children in Springdale, Pennsylvania.

The ordeal began on May 21 at Veterans Memorial Park, northeast of Pittsburgh, when a group of children decided to twist the swing’s chains tightly and release them so the riders would spin around and become dizzy, according to WTAE.

It was the kind of playground stunt children have performed for generations.

But this time, one of the chains snapped.

According to their mother, Katie Huss, her daughters immediately told her what had happened when she arrived to pick them up.

Approximately two weeks later, a Springdale police officer reportedly arrived at the family’s home carrying surveillance photographs and seeking payment for the damaged swing.

Huss said the photographs showed numerous children participating, prompting her to question why police were approaching her family alone. The borough later maintained that five juveniles were identified and that the approximately $295 repair bill was divided equally, about $59 per child.

Three families reportedly paid their shares.

Huss refused, saying she wanted evidence that her daughters had intentionally broken the swing and information showing when the playground equipment had last been inspected or repaired.

Then the situation escalated dramatically.

The borough pursued criminal-mischief charges against her 10- and 12-year-old daughters.

“They were super scared,” Huss told WTAE. “They’re good little girls. They go out, and they play.”

Springdale officials denied giving the family a direct “pay or your children will be charged” ultimatum. Officials argued that restitution had been offered as a way to resolve the matter without continuing juvenile proceedings.

But when Huss declined to pay, her daughters still ended up as defendants in court, Triblive reported.

At the hearing, a Springdale police officer testified that the children had violated a posted playground rule instructing visitors not to twist the swing chains.

Borough Solicitor Craig Alexander reportedly argued that people sometimes break rules for the thrill of it.

There was just one enormous problem with the borough’s case: Criminal mischief requires evidence of criminal intent.

The judge determined that the children’s conduct caused the swing to break but found insufficient evidence that the girls intended to damage it. They were consequently found not responsible.

In other words, the children were playing recklessly, not carrying out a calculated attack against municipal playground equipment.

Common sense finally prevailed in the courtroom, but only after two little girls were subjected to criminal proceedings over a broken swing and a $59 repair dispute.

Huss said she would have understood a warning or a conversation explaining how the equipment should be used. What she never expected was for ordinary childhood misbehavior to result in actual criminal charges.

That should have been the end of it.

It wasn’t. Now they want to sue the mom over pocket change

Even after the acquittal, borough officials have vowed to file a civil complaint to recover repair costs. Huss says she is “still waiting to find out if they’re going to escalate it further as they promised.” Her answer: “I’m not going to give in.”

Keep reading

The End EPA Abuse Act targets regulatory overreach and the climate hysteria baked into onerous regulations

The conflict between the EPA and congressional conservatives is not a recent development, but rather the culmination of decades of increasingly aggressive interpretations of the Clean Air Act. Originally enacted in 1970 to address visible air pollution, the statute has been used by successive administrations, particularly under Presidents Obama and Biden, to pursue broader climate policy objectives that many legal scholars argue were never intended by Congress.

The Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which sought to shift the nation’s electricity generation away from coal, was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2022 under the major questions doctrine, which holds that agencies cannot make decisions of vast economic and political significance without clear congressional authorization. The Biden regime continued this approach by pushing electric vehicle mandates and greenhouse gas standards that functioned as indirect bans on traditional combustion engines, according to the bill’s supporters.

Senator Lee did not mince words when describing the EPA’s actions, stating, “They’ve exploited any power they can grab to push Biden and Obama’s climate psychosis at the expense of our energy security.” The senator’s language reflects a growing frustration among conservatives with what they perceive as a regulatory assault on American industry.

Senator Lummis echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the importance of restoring power to elected officials, noting, “The End EPA Abuse Act puts Congress back in the driver’s seat where we belong.” Representative Clyde, who introduced the House companion bill, specifically called out the Biden administration’s approach, saying the EPA “increasingly treated the Clean Air Act as a blank check to push de facto electric vehicle mandates, jeopardize reliable energy sources, and impose costly regulations on American consumers and businesses.”

One of the most contentious aspects of the bill is its prohibition on waivers granted to California, which has historically received special permission under the Clean Air Act to set stricter emissions standards than the federal government. Due to California’s enormous market size, its regulations effectively dictate vehicle production decisions for the entire nation, as automakers cannot afford to produce separate vehicle lines for different states. The bill would eliminate this waiver authority, which supporters argue would return market forces to the automobile industry and bring down costs for all Americans. Democrats contend that California’s leadership has driven innovation in vehicle emissions technology for decades, and removing the waiver could weaken environmental protections in states that choose to adopt stricter standards.

Keep reading

Maryland Court Strikes Down Nation’s First State Tax On Digital Advertising

A state tax court in Maryland invalidated the nation’s first state tax on digital advertising and directed state officials to refund tax payments already collected from major tech companies.

The legal dispute had been closely watched by other states that are considering taxing online advertisements.

The Annapolis-based Maryland Tax Court ruled on Aug. 14 that the digital advertising gross revenues tax was unconstitutional after it was challenged in three separate lawsuits by Google, Apple, and Peacock TV. Refunds are expected to run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The state imposes the levies based on the businesses’ global revenue. Lawmakers previously said the tax could raise $250 million per year. The money raised from the tax was earmarked for a state education program.

The 2021 tax statute specifically targets the revenue large companies earn from digital advertisements shown in Maryland. Companies that take in more than $100 million in annual global gross revenue were taxed at 2.5 percent.

A sliding scale applies to companies with larger revenues, maxing out at 10 percent for those earning more than $15 billion in global gross annual revenues.

The law’s backers argued that Maryland needed to overhaul its tax system to deal with major changes in how businesses advertise. Lawyers representing the affected companies said their clients were targeted unfairly.

The state court said the tax runs afoul of the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, the First Amendment, and the due process and commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

The court held that regulating interstate commerce was the business of Congress – not the Maryland General Assembly – and that it was inappropriate that the tax law was premised on global revenue rather than revenue that comes from in-state advertising.

The Internet Tax Freedom Act forbids taxation of electronic commerce if similar services are not taxed. The court held that there is no meaningful distinction between digital advertising and print or billboard ads, meaning the federal bar applies.

Keep reading

Video Shows Fort Worth Cop Ticketing a Preacher for ‘Offensive’ Speech at Pride Event

A Fort Worth Police officer ticketed a preacher in late June, claiming the content of his speech was offensive. This week the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division launched an inquiry into the incident to determine if the officer violated the First Amendment.

The widely circulated video of the confrontation shows an officer and a protester during the Trinity Pride Fest on June 27. “If someone is offended by your talking, then we have a problem,” said Officer Sara Stogner.

“That’s a constitutional violation of our rights,” responds David Grisham, a street preacher and retired federal law enforcement officer. The two continue to argue when Stogner asserts, “OK, then I’ll write you the ticket, and we’ll go from there.”

“Wait, you’re going to ticket us for offensive speech?” the cameraman asks incredulously. To which the officer confidently responds, “Yes, absolutely.”

Stogner continues to claim she can ticket the two men for disorderly conduct “if someone complains that your language or what you’re saying is offensive.”  

But that’s not how the First Amendment works, according to legal experts. “The First Amendment does not allow government officials to shut down speech simply on account of it being ‘offensive,'” said Brennan VanderVeen, program counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. “The government can restrict certain types of conduct or restrict noise above a certain volume level,” he continued, but citing someone because people are offended by the content of protected speech is “precisely what the First Amendment does not allow.” 

Grisham was ultimately cited for misuse of a bullhorn during a protest, a citation he argues isn’t supported by the city’s noise ordinance, reports WFAA, an ABC News affiliate. Grisham’s civil rights attorneys announced on July 3 their intent to challenge the citation, arguing Stogner failed to issue a decibel check in accordance with the city’s noise ordinance and Texas code, which presumes an unreasonable noise to be in excess of 85, and instead cited Grisham for “engaging in peaceful and protected speech.” 

In response to growing online backlash, Fort Worth Police Chief Eddie Garcia told WFAA on Monday that his department takes responsibility and is currently instituting department-wide First Amendment training. “We just trained up our command staff again with refresher courses. We’re going to be training our sergeants. We’re going to be training our officers,” said Garcia. “We are not a perfect profession,” he continued, “and officers will make mistakes from time to time.” Garcia did not mention any ways in which Stogner would be held personally accountable or liable. 

“Actively training police officers around First Amendment standards would be a positive step,” said VanderVeen, who added that “government officials being unaware of basic First Amendment standards is a persistent problem.” 

So much so, it seems, the Justice Department is also looking into the incident and has asked the Fort Worth city attorney for information to help the agency determine if an investigation is necessary, reports Fox News. “The Civil Rights Division is committed to ensuring all Americans—regardless of the content or viewpoint of their speech—are protected from unlawful restrictions on expressive activity,” wrote Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon.

The City of Fort Worth, Texas, has 30 days to provide the DOJ with further information.

The Justice Department is right to ensure Grisham’s freedom of speech has not been infringed, and doing so is consistent with the agency’s core mission to protect civil rights. But the move stands out against a backdrop of the agency’s alleged First Amendment violations since President Donald Trump took office, including subpoenaing journalists, coercing social media companies to remove immigration officer tracking apps, and attempting to unmask anonymous online critics. 

But for now, Americans can rest assured that the Justice Department can still do the right thing every once in a while.

Keep reading

What a Landmark Case in Britain Could Mean for Mother Charged in Idaho Twins’ Deaths

When Angela Cannings’ child died in 1989, doctors concluded the 13-week-old baby girl tragically succumbed to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

By the time two more infants — one in 1991, the other in 1999 — died, suspicion replaced sympathy.

Prosecutors alleged the English mother had suffocated her two sons. To make their case, they relied on prominent pediatric experts who testified that multiple unexplained infant deaths in one family were extraordinarily unlikely to occur naturally.

In 2002, a jury convicted Cannings of murder, and she was sentenced to life in prison.

Less than two years later, the England and Wales Court of Appeal overturned the convictions in a decision that fundamentally changed how British courts view expert medical testimony in unexplained child death cases.

Ruling continues to influence legal discussion decades later

The ruling in Cannings’ case continues to influence legal discussions more than two decades later because it established an enduring principle. Namely, when respected medical experts fundamentally disagree about the cause of a child’s death, and there is no compelling independent evidence of homicide, criminal convictions should not rest on disputed scientific opinion alone.

The Court of Appeal had ruled prosecutors should not proceed when reputable experts disagree about the cause of death and there is no other compelling evidence.

That principle has resurfaced in legal commentary as prosecutors in Idaho pursue murder charges against Andrea Shaw, accused of killing her 18-month-old twin toddlers.

The 23-year-old mother was arrested more than a year after her fraternal twins, Dallas and Tyson, were found dead in their home on May 1, 2025, eight days after receiving their 18-month vaccines.

Shaw spoke with CHD.TV days after the tragic 2025 incident, saying at the 18-month mark, the twins received their hepatitis A, DTaP and flu shots. Shaw said she told the pediatrician she was concerned about the flu shot because there was a history of adverse reactions to the vaccine on the father’s side of the family. However, the doctor assured her it was safe for the twins.

Within 24 hours, Shaw took the twins to the emergency room after they both became lethargic, their lips turned blue and they experienced digestive issues. Medical records confirm they were diagnosed with “post-immunization reaction.”

After administering Tylenol and observing the twins as they ate popsicles, doctors sent them home. Shaw told CHD.TV that days later, she discovered both children dead in their beds. “They looked as if they had gone in their sleep,” she said.

Shaw pleaded not guilty, and her attorney said the children died from medical complications rather than homicide. Prosecutors contend the twins were intentionally suffocated. On Tuesday, a district judge in Payette County revoked Shaw’s $2 million bail.

Shaw’s next court date is scheduled for August 18.

Keep reading

A judge decides that property owners in Wainfleet, Ont. deserve to be fined MILLIONS for renting their properties!

Government overreach has once again reared its ugly head in the Township of Wainfleet, Ont. (pop. approximately 7,000). And at least one Ontario judge is OK with this.

Here’s the skinny: Wainfleet council has effectively declared war on landowners who make their properties available for short-term rentals. And the township is fining these residents at least $10,000 per owner per dwelling per day!

Translation: as these daily fines mount, few can afford to pay these enormous sums. And that ultimately means “violators” risk having their properties seized by the township.

This seems like banana republic stuff to say the least.

Meanwhile, one dare not say anything negative about this council on social media. That’s because this council is trying to silence citizens via a lawsuit based on… copyright violation? Indeed, the township claims videos online depict the township’s crest and corporate log, emblems that are being used without consent or approval. Seriously.

It would appear that the Township of Wainfleet likes to carry out its shakedowns away from the public eye and will pursue censorship to ensure that goal if need be. All of which has many residents in the township pondering if Wainfleet is situated in the Dominion of Canada – or the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea.

Rebel News interviewed Scott Wilson and Laural Duquette more than a year ago. They head up the Wainfleet Association of Responsible Short-Term Rentals (STR).

Wilson says he is facing a total fine threshold that now totals $175 million. As such, his family risks having their property confiscated by the township given that they are unable to pay those fines.

The township’s heavy-handed tactics are beyond the pale. Granted, Canadians do not enjoy private property rights under the constitution. But the questions arise: what is driving this short-term rental vendetta? What is the harm in a homeowner renting out his or her property? Those are key questions – and questions that deserve answers – except that nobody at the township will come on the record to comment.

And another query arises: what indeed is the unspoken strategy behind the short-term rental jihad? Is this all about Wainfleet councilors embracing a NIMBY initiative when it comes to short-term rentals in their township?

Recently, Wilson and his fellow renters had their day in court fighting these massive fines. It did not go well. Justice James Ramsay in the Superior Court of Justice in Welland ruled in favour of the township. Here are some excerpts from his decision:

  • “There is no evidence of bad faith [by the Township of Wainfleet].”
  • “The penalties are coercive, as opposed to punitive. They are not disproportionate.”
  • “The by-law is not discriminatory. Requiring the owner to own the property for two years before applying for a licence promotes stability of ownership and makes absenteeism by landlords less desirable. Operators who live in the community have a stake in the liveability [sic] of the neighbourhood.”

Justice Ramsay dismissed the application and awarded the Township of Wainfleet partial legal costs totaling $5,000. Then again, given that Wilson is already on the hook for $175 million, five grand amounts to chump change…

Check out our most recent interview with Wilson. While he and his fellow renters may be down, they are not out given they are appealing the decision.

That appeal is scheduled for next January. This story is far from over. Stay tuned.

Keep reading

The KIDS Act: A Bipartisan Mass Surveillance Megabill

Just weeks after Americans criticized the United Kingdom for imposing intrusive and heavy-handed social media rules, Congress is now advancing legislation that raises strikingly similar concerns about government overreach, privacy erosion, and the expansion of online surveillance.

A bipartisan agreement on children’s online safety legislation unveiled by House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders would impose new obligations on social media platforms, while creating powerful incentives for companies to end online anonymity.

The proposal is part of the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act (KIDS Act), an omnibus package that bundles together multiple bills, including the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), the SCREEN Act, the SAFE BOTs Act, COPPA 2.0, the SPY Kids Act, and more, as well as data broker provisions and research and education initiatives.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie and ranking Democrat Frank Pallone announced Monday that they had reached agreement on the legislation, which would require social media companies to provide additional safeguards and parental tools for minors. The lawmakers said it would “hold Big Tech accountable.”

“We worked across the aisle for many months and have now found common ground on policies to significantly improve the digital environment for kids,” Guthrie and Pallone said in a joint statement.

As always, under that framing lies a familiar and deeply controversial approach: imposing broad obligations on platforms that hinge on whether companies know a user is a minor, without clearly defining how that knowledge is supposed to be obtained.

Congress has tried for years to set national rules for social media and youth safety. Those efforts have repeatedly stalled, in part because of unresolved tensions between child protection goals and fundamental privacy rights. In the absence of federal action, states have moved ahead with their own laws, often pushing even more aggressive requirements.

One of the main disputes appears to have been resolved in favor of House Republicans. According to a committee spokesperson, the agreement does not include a “duty of care” provision, a requirement backed by many child-safety advocates and several Senate lawmakers.

The bill text states that nothing in it may be construed to “impose a duty of care on a provider of a covered platform.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court Upholds Marijuana Users’ Gun Rights, Rejecting Trump DOJ Arguments In Major Second Amendment Case

The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously sided with a man who was prosecuted for possessing a gun while being a regular consumer of marijuana, ruling that the government’s actions violate the Second Amendment.

The opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch is narrow in scope and does not entirely strike down the federal law known as 922(g)(3) that prohibits people who illegally consume controlled substances from possessing or purchasing firearms.

But it does say that as applied to the man in the current case, Ali Danial Hemani, it is unconstitutional to automatically bar people from lawful gun ownership just because they happen to use marijuana occasionally.

It also says that the broad ban and the government’s effort to defend it are “at odds with” the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule cannabis.

The government “asks us to conclude that anyone who regularly uses marijuana is categorically violent and dangerous without any further showing,” the opinion says. “All based on little more than its current say-so, one at odds with its own regulatory actions. And affording the government that kind of ‘broad power to designate any group as dangerous and thereby disqualify its members from having a gun’ would risk allowing it to ‘quickly swallow’ the Second Amendment.”

The court’s opinion in U.S. vs. Hemani does not address “efforts to ban addicts, or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm,” it says. “We do not address other prophylactic laws Congress might adopt after determining that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing firearms. We do not address 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(1)’s provision disarming individuals convicted of felonies (often including drug-related ones).”

“We do not even address whether the government could bring a prosecution under §922(g)(3) accompanied by individualized proof that the defendant’s use of marijuana (or any other drug) renders him a danger to himself or others. Or proof that a certain drug always renders its users dangerous because of its potency or for some other reason. None of those issues is before us and we do not pass on them either way.”

“All that is before us is one, if surely ambitious, theory. The government maintains that it may automatically strip Mr. Hemani of his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm because he uses marijuana a few times a week,” Gorsuch wrote. “More than that, because he possessed a gun despite this prohibition, the government insists it may imprison him for up to 15 years and disarm him for life.”

“According to the government, none of this turns on how much marijuana Mr. Hemani uses or what effect it has on him. It makes no difference either if he keeps a firearm only in his home for selfdefense, never misuses a gun while intoxicated, and never poses a danger to himself or others as a result of his marijuana use. The only thing the government must show, it says, is that an individual like Mr. Hemani regularly uses any amount of any controlled substance.”

The court’s opinion details recent large-scale federal policy changes concerning marijuana, and how they undermine the broad statute seeking to strip cannabis consumers of their Second Amendment rights.

Keep reading