Washington — The Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday in United States v. Hemani, a Second Amendment challenge to a federal law that bars unlawful drug users from possessing firearms. The case is the second gun-rights matter this term after the court considered a Hawaii restriction on where concealed-carry licensees may carry; in that case the justices appeared skeptical of the law’s constitutionality.
The statute at issue is from the Gun Control Act of 1968 and 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. One high-profile prosecution involved Hunter Biden, who was convicted in 2024 of possessing a gun while addicted to crack cocaine and was later pardoned.
Facts of the Hemani case
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 and surrendered it; he also acknowledged using marijuana a few times a week. Prosecutors relied solely on his marijuana use in bringing the drug-user-in-possession charge. Hemani moved to dismiss on Second Amendment grounds, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit—relying on earlier 2023 and 2024 panel rulings—held the statute unconstitutional as applied to a user not proven to be under the influence while possessing a firearm.
The legal questions
The Biden and Trump administrations have taken different public stances on gun issues broadly, but in Hemani the Justice Department urges the Supreme Court to uphold the law. In filings, Solicitor General D. John Sauer contends Congress may restrict gun possession by habitual users of controlled substances. The government argues the statute targets habitual users, is temporary and limited (rights return once habitual use stops), and fits within a historical tradition of disarming people who pose a clear threat to others. Sauer points to founding-era laws restricting habitual drunkards and notes that 43 states and D.C. have laws restricting firearm possession by drug users or addicts. He warns that upholding the 5th Circuit’s decisions would jeopardize those state laws. The Justice Department also notes a revived process for petitioning to restore gun rights.
Hemani’s lawyers say the question is narrow: whether an occasional marijuana user may be deprived of the right to keep a handgun at home. They argue the statute is unconstitutionally vague—Congress did not define “unlawful user” or set frequency, recency or intensity thresholds—and that the law violates the Second Amendment. Hemani’s brief asserts there is no historical tradition for stripping someone of arms for consuming an “intoxicant” a few times a week. The ACLU, co-counsel for Hemani, calls the prosecution a major civil-rights issue: a person could face years in prison for admitting regular marijuana use and possessing a safely stored gun at home.
Broader doctrinal context
The case comes after the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, which reshaped lower-court review of firearms regulations by requiring the government to show a challenged law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Lower courts have struggled to apply Bruen; some longstanding federal restrictions have been invalidated for failing the history-and-tradition test. In 2024’s United States v. Rahimi, the Court upheld a federal ban on guns for people subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, offering guidance on applying Bruen when 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 a present threat. Legal scholars say the case tests whether legislatures have authority to disarm categories of people, subject to historical justifications and judicial review.
Alliances and stakes
The case has produced unusual alliances: gun-violence-prevention groups join the Justice Department in supporting the law, while civil liberties organizations and gun-rights groups like the NRA back Hemani. The government compares disarming habitual drug users to historical measures against habitual drunkards; Hemani’s lawyers counter those historical analogues applied to persons who regularly abused alcohol, not to ordinary drinkers, and warn that accepting the government’s theory could disarm millions who use intoxicants with some frequency.
Hemani’s team also notes the growing state legalization of marijuana—about 40 states have legalized cannabis use to some degree—arguing the federal ban creates a persistent risk for residents of those states who lawfully use marijuana and own guns. They maintain that narrower, targeted measures would better serve public safety than a categorical federal prohibition applied without clear standards.
Related questions
The Supreme Court is also being asked to review other Gun Control Act provisions, including the 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 of those petitions but has not yet decided some notable appeals, including one from a Utah woman convicted of felony bank fraud more than 15 years ago.
Why it matters
Observers say Hemani is the first significant Supreme Court test of a legislature’s power to disarm categories of people under the post-Bruen framework. The decision could clarify how courts evaluate categorical disarmament laws, the role of historical analogues, and the acceptable scope of federal power to restrict firearm rights for classes of people based on conduct such as drug use.