The Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous decision on Thursday in a closely watched Second Amendment case involving firearm possession and marijuana use, siding with a Texas man whose prosecution under federal drug-related gun restrictions was struck down.
In United States v. Hemani, the Court held that applying 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3) to Ali Danial Hemani, a dual U.S.-Pakistan citizen living in the Dallas area, violates the Second Amendment as applied to his circumstances. The ruling was authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, reflecting rare cross-ideological agreement on limits to broad firearm restrictions.
The case began in 2022 when FBI agents searched Hemani’s family home in the Dallas region. During the search, authorities recovered a Glock 19 9mm handgun, roughly 60 grams of marijuana, and a small quantity of cocaine. Hemani cooperated with investigators, surrendering the firearm and acknowledging regular marijuana use, estimated at about every other day.
Federal prosecutors charged him solely under §922(g)(3), which bars any “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing firearms. The statute carries a potential penalty of up to 15 years in prison. Importantly, Hemani was not charged with violent conduct or drug trafficking, and the case centered entirely on whether habitual drug use alone justifies disarmament.
Lower courts in Texas rejected the prosecution’s theory. Both the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found the statute unconstitutional as applied in this instance, relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Bruen, which requires modern gun regulations to align with historical traditions of firearm control.
The federal government, under the Trump administration’s appeal, argued that regular drug users pose sufficient risk to justify categorical disarmament. The Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that the government failed to identify adequate historical analogues supporting automatic firearm bans for non-intoxicated users of controlled substances. The Court examined 19th-century “habitual drunkard” laws but found those examples typically required individualized determinations of dangerousness and procedural safeguards before restricting rights.
The ruling is narrowly tailored. It does not invalidate firearm restrictions for individuals actively intoxicated while possessing weapons, nor does it address broader prohibitions involving documented substance use disorders or cases involving additional evidence of violence or risk. Existing federal restrictions on felon firearm possession also remain intact.
The decision arrives amid ongoing national debate over cannabis policy and federal enforcement. Marijuana remains regulated under the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule I substance, despite widespread state-level legalization. Currently, recreational cannabis is legal in more than 20 states and Washington, D.C., while medical programs operate in the majority of states. This patchwork regulatory system continues to create conflicts between state permissions and federal prohibitions.
Public health and survey data suggest that tens of millions of Americans use marijuana annually, reflecting a substantial portion of the adult population. As cannabis use becomes more common and legally accessible in many states, questions surrounding firearm eligibility under federal law are likely to remain a source of legal and political friction.
%20(1)%20(1)%20(1).jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
