Washington — The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Monday in United States v. Hemani, a Second Amendment challenge to a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 that bars “unlawful users” of controlled substances from possessing firearms. The case is the second major gun-rights matter this term after arguments over Hawaii’s restrictions on where concealed-carry permit holders may carry, where the justices signaled skepticism of that law’s constitutionality.
The federal statute at issue makes it a felony—punishable by up to 15 years in prison—for an unlawful drug user to possess a firearm. The Justice Department says roughly 300 people are charged under the provision each year. A high-profile prosecution under the same law resulted in a 2024 conviction for Hunter Biden, who was later pardoned for possessing a gun while addicted to crack cocaine.
Facts of the Hemani prosecution
Ali Hemani was charged after the FBI found a Glock 9mm pistol, about 60 grams of marijuana and a small amount of cocaine during a search of his family’s Texas home. Hemani told agents about the gun, surrendered it and acknowledged using marijuana several times a week. Prosecutors relied solely on his admitted marijuana use in bringing the unlawful-user possession charge. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, citing earlier panel decisions, held the statute unconstitutional as applied to a user who was not proven to be under the influence while possessing the firearm.
Central legal questions
The Justice Department, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, urges the Supreme Court to uphold the statute. The government argues Congress may disarm habitual users of controlled substances, that the ban is temporary and limited because rights are restored once habitual use stops, and that it fits within a historical tradition of disarming people who pose a clear threat to others. The government points to founding-era laws addressing habitual drunkards and notes that 43 states and the District of Columbia have laws restricting firearm possession by drug users or addicts. The Justice Department also warns that affirming the 5th Circuit would place those state laws at risk and highlights a revived federal process for petitioning to restore gun rights.
Hemani’s lawyers frame the issue narrowly: whether an occasional or non-intoxicated marijuana user may be deprived of the right to keep a handgun at home. They contend the statute is unconstitutionally vague because Congress never defined “unlawful user” or set standards for frequency, recency or intensity of use, and they argue the law violates the Second Amendment. Hemani’s brief says there is no historical analogue for stripping someone of arms for using an intoxicant a few times a week. The ACLU, co-counsel for Hemani, describes the prosecution as a significant civil-rights concern: a person could face years in prison for admitting regular marijuana use while possessing a safely stored gun at home.
Doctrinal background
The dispute arises in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, which requires courts to assess firearms regulations against the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. Lower courts have struggled to apply Bruen, and some longstanding federal restrictions have been invalidated for failing the history-and-tradition test. In United States v. Rahimi (2024), the Court upheld a federal prohibition on firearms for people subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, offering guidance on applying Bruen where a court has made a present-danger determination.
Hemani differs from Rahimi because it involves a congressional, categorical determination about which groups may be disarmed rather than a judicial finding that a particular individual poses an immediate threat. Legal scholars say the case tests whether legislatures may categorically disarm classes of people, and if so, what historical justifications suffice under Bruen.
Alliances and stakes
The litigation has produced uncommon alliances: gun-violence-prevention organizations back the government’s position, while civil liberties groups and gun-rights advocates, including the NRA, support Hemani. The government likens disarming habitual drug users to historical measures applied to habitual drunkards; Hemani’s team counters that historical analogues targeted persons who regularly abused alcohol, not ordinary drinkers, and warns that the government’s theory could sweep in millions who use intoxicants with some frequency.
Hemani’s lawyers also note growing state legalization of marijuana—about 40 states have legalized cannabis to some degree—and argue the federal statute creates a persistent risk for residents of those states who lawfully use marijuana and own firearms. They contend that more narrowly tailored, targeted measures would better protect public safety than a categorical federal ban that lacks clear standards.
Related challenges and why the case matters
The Supreme Court is also being asked to revisit other Gun Control Act provisions, including the longstanding ban on firearm possession by people convicted of felonies. Dozens of petitions challenge whether that prohibition violates the Second Amendment as applied to nonviolent felons; the court has denied many petitions but has left some notable appeals unresolved.
Observers say Hemani may be the first major test of a legislature’s authority to disarm categories of people under the post-Bruen framework. A decision for either side could reshape how courts evaluate categorical disarmament laws, clarify the role of historical analogues in Second Amendment cases, and define the scope of federal power to restrict firearm rights for classes of people based on conduct such as drug use.