On Oct. 20, the Supreme Court said it will decide if the federal law that restricts ownership of a firearm from those who are “an unlawful user or addicted to any controlled substance” violates the Second Amendment.
Ali Daniel Hemani, a man in Texas, was initially prosecuted for breaking federal law when a search warrant led by FBI agents allegedly seized a Glock 9mm handgun, marijuana and cocaine at Hemani’s residence. Attorneys representing Hemani maintain that the move to prosecute Hemani via the federal statute was unconstitutional. A district judge and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals have initially sided with Hemani and his attorneys.
According to the appeals court, the law was unconstitutionally enforced, as the government acted on the assumption of alleging consistent drug use. Instead, the government must prove intoxication at time of arrest. But because the government alleges that Hemani consistently uses marijuana, he is now barred from owning a firearm.
While the Trump administration has touted itself as being “pro-gun”, recent reporting from Washington has revealed tensions between the federal law in question, President Biden’s move to pardon his son, Hunter, in 2024 of federal gun charges under the same law, and the current administration’s position. In response to both the district judge and appellate court rulings, the Trump administration requested that the Supreme Court reassess limitations of gun ownership that correspond to drug use.
Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that marijuana is America’s most frequently used illegal substance. But similarly pervasive is America’s gun culture. Polls from Gallup in 2020 revealed that 44% of Americans live in a household with a gun. United States v. Hemani is a complicated look into when two worlds collide, fueled by unclear precedent and political positions. According to court documents, Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, wrote that though the right to bear arms is a “fundamental right” there are “narrow circumstances in which the government may justifiably burden that right.” Sauer continued by noting that there is a historical precedent for barring “habitual drunkards” from gun ownership.
Despite lower court’s ruling in favor of Hemani, the case has moved forward and will likely be heard in 2026.
If the statute is upheld by the Supreme Court, the federal government may very well be able to modulate gun ownership to those who use illegal drugs. This would include cannabis, regardless of state legality, as cannabis is still illegal at a federal level. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court agrees with the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, the arena in which cannabis use and gun ownership is discussed at a federal level could shift; particularly in states where cannabis isn’t legal.