The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that the federal government unconstitutionally applied a gun restriction to Ali Hemani, a Texas man who regularly used marijuana and kept a handgun for self-defense. The decision in United States v. Hemani narrows the reach of a federal statute that bars unlawful users of controlled substances from possessing firearms.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the Court, said the ruling was limited and did not prevent the government from disarming addicts, dangerous people, or individuals currently intoxicated while possessing weapons. Prosecutors had argued that historical regulations targeting “habitual drunkards” supported modern restrictions on illegal drug users. The Court rejected that comparison, finding that earlier laws addressed different groups and circumstances.
Hemani, 27, acknowledged smoking marijuana about every other day. FBI agents later found a handgun in his home. The Court noted that prosecutors did not allege he was addicted, used the firearm while impaired, threatened anyone, or posed a danger to himself or others. Gorsuch warned that the government’s broad interpretation could extend to people who misuse prescription drugs, such as students taking Adderall or spouses using Ambien without authorization.
The decision has implications for prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the same law used in Hunter Biden’s 2024 firearm case. Biden was convicted before receiving a pardon from President Joe Biden. However, the justices did not invalidate the statute overall, instead focusing on Hemani’s specific circumstances.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, wrote separately to agree that the government had not shown Hemani resembled historically restricted severely impaired individuals. The ruling was welcomed by some Second Amendment advocates and underscores the Court’s continued reliance on historical tradition when evaluating firearm regulations under the Constitution. It leaves future disputes over drug use, impairment, and firearm possession for courts to address in narrower factual contexts.