Supreme Court to Hear Case on Law Barring Drug Users From Gun Ownership
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear United States v. Hemani, a case that could have sweeping implications for gun rights and federal firearm restrictions tied to drug use. The case challenges the constitutionality of a federal law that prohibits firearm possession by anyone “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”
The case stems from a 2022 FBI search of a Texas man’s home, where agents discovered a Glock 9mm pistol along with 60 grams of marijuana and 4.7 grams of cocaine. Hemani was not under the influence of drugs, nor was he in physical possession of the firearm at the time it was found.
U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant dismissed the charges, citing the 5th Circuit’s 2023 decision in United States v. Daniels. That earlier case relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, which held that firearms regulations are unconstitutional unless they are “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
In Daniels, the appellate court criticized the government’s reliance on modern precedent rather than historical sources from the Founding or Reconstruction eras, stating that the lower court had “placed great weight on regulatory tradition but engaged with few historical sources.”
The question before the Supreme Court is not whether someone may possess a gun while under the influence, but whether any use of an illegal substance can constitutionally bar firearm ownership. As noted by SCOTUSblog, lower courts are not currently divided on this issue, which makes the Court’s decision to review it especially notable.
In June, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the justices to take up the case. Sauer acknowledged that “the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right essential to ordered liberty,” and that any unjustifiable restriction “presents a grave threat to Americans’ most cherished freedoms.”
However, he argued that the law in question represents one of the “narrow circumstances in which the government may justifiably burden that right.” According to Sauer, the statute only targets habitual drug users and imposes a “limited, inherently temporary restriction—one that can be lifted simply by ceasing unlawful drug use.”
Sauer also asserted that the law aligns with the nation’s history and tradition of regulating firearms, describing it as “a modest, modern analogue” to early American bans on gun possession by “habitual drunkards.” He added that habitual drug users pose “unique dangers to society,” especially given the risk of “armed, hostile encounters with police officers while impaired.”
Hemani’s legal team, by contrast, urged the Supreme Court to leave the 5th Circuit’s ruling intact. They argued that there is no conflict among appellate courts on this issue and that the government failed to properly present its historical arguments in the lower courts.
The Gateway Pundit previously reported on a similar 2023 case from Oklahoma, where a federal judge ruled that “the mere use of marijuana carries none of the characteristics that the Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation supports.”
If the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the law, it could lead to the revocation of gun rights for millions of Americans—including veterans—who use marijuana for medicinal purposes.
About Post Author
