SCOTUS Questions Cannabis Gun Ban as IRS Fights 280E

The Supreme Court Just Handed Cannabis a Moment

It happened quietly, the way big things in Washington always seem to happen before they explode. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in a case about whether the federal government can strip cannabis users of their Second Amendment rights. And from the sound of it, most of the justices weren't buying the government's pitch.

The case centers on a simple but loaded question: is someone who uses cannabis — a substance the federal government is actively in the process of rescheduling — so "uniquely dangerous" that they should be disarmed? Several justices openly questioned that logic. One of the clearest signals came when justices noted that if cannabis moves to Schedule III, the foundational argument for the gun ban collapses. You can't call someone a dangerous drug user when the government itself is reclassifying what that drug is.

This is the momentum you build over decades. And right now, in March 2026, that momentum is very much in motion.

Meanwhile, the IRS issued a different message entirely — one that basically said: we don't care what direction the wind is blowing, cannabis businesses are still paying full freight. Welcome to Grow It Forward Thursday.

The SCOTUS Signal: Rescheduling Changes Everything

The federal ban on cannabis users possessing firearms was always legally awkward. It's rooted in a 1968 law that allows the government to disarm people who are "unlawful users" of controlled substances. Because cannabis is Schedule I, users are technically unlawful at the federal level — even in states where it's fully legal.

But the Supreme Court justices who heard Wednesday's oral arguments seemed deeply uncomfortable with that reasoning in 2026. Several justices made direct references to the pending rescheduling process and asked whether classifying cannabis users as dangerous was still sustainable given what we now know scientifically and culturally about the plant.

This matters beyond the specific case. A Supreme Court ruling that undermines the cannabis-disarmament framework would force a broader reckoning with Schedule I's last remaining legal teeth. It would signal to lower courts, to Congress, and to the DEA that the old architecture is crumbling. It's not just about gun rights — it's about whether the federal government can keep treating cannabis users as second-class citizens while simultaneously rescheduling the plant they use.

No ruling yet. But the oral arguments told a story.

The IRS Isn't Waiting for the Story to End

While one branch of government was signaling flexibility, another was digging in. In the ongoing NM Top Organics case, the IRS argued this week that marijuana remains Schedule I for federal tax purposes until the rescheduling process is formally complete. Not implied complete. Not probably complete. Formally. Signed, sealed, and delivered complete.

That means 280E is still fully in force.

If you're not in the industry, 280E is the tax provision that bars cannabis businesses from deducting ordinary business expenses — payroll, rent, marketing, everything — because they're considered drug traffickers under federal law. It's a tax rate that can push effective rates above 70 percent for profitable dispensaries. It has bankrupted legal businesses, stunted hiring, and kept the regulated cannabis market perpetually disadvantaged compared to illicit operators who pay no taxes at all.

The IRS also argued that the Tax Court has no authority to rule otherwise. That's a significant power play — essentially saying the court system should stay out of it entirely until the executive branch resolves the rescheduling question.

The practical message to cannabis operators: keep doing the math the hard way. The relief isn't here yet.

State News: Texas, Alabama, Delaware, Louisiana

While federal courts and tax agencies debate the shape of the future, the states are living in it — and not all of them are moving in the same direction.

Texas is five days from a significant crackdown. New rules taking effect March 31 will ban smokeable hemp, eliminate THCA flower and pre-rolls from retail shelves, and impose new licensing fees ranging from $155 to $10,000 depending on the type of operator. The hemp industry in Texas is already preparing legal challenges to block the rules, but consumers should assume the ban takes effect on schedule. If you're in Texas and you're stocking up, the clock is ticking.

Alabama is finally launching medical cannabis. After years of litigation and licensing battles that made the state a cautionary tale for every other state trying to stand up a regulatory program, dispensaries are preparing to open for patient sales. It took longer than anyone expected, but patients who have been waiting are getting access at last.

Delaware's Senate unanimously passed a bill allowing terminally ill patients to use medical cannabis in hospitals, with the House committee already approving it. That's a common-sense measure that removes a cruel catch-22 — seriously ill patients who rely on cannabis for symptom management often have to stop using it the moment they're admitted to the hospital that's supposed to help them.

Louisiana is offering approximately $400 million in tax amnesty to cannabis businesses with back-tax obligations. It's a recognition that the patchwork of state and federal tax rules has left operators in impossible positions, and at least one state is acknowledging that reality with something more than a shrug.