Photo: RAMZI HAIDAR / AFP / Getty Images
The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that a federal law banning illegal drug users from possessing firearms violated the constitutional rights of a Texas man who regularly used marijuana. The decision, delivered Thursday (June 18), marks a significant interpretation of the Second Amendment as it applies to gun ownership and drug use.
The case centered on Ali Danial Hemani, whose home was searched by the FBI. Agents found a pistol, marijuana, and cocaine, and Hemani admitted to using marijuana roughly every other day. He was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), a federal law making it a crime for anyone who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess a gun—a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Hemani argued that the law, as applied to him, violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms because it did not require proof that he was intoxicated when he possessed the firearm.
A federal district court agreed and dismissed the indictment, citing a previous Fifth Circuit decision that found the law unconstitutional in similar circumstances. The government appealed, but the Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal, agreeing the law lacked sufficient clarity and historical precedent for a broad ban on gun possession by habitual, but not actively intoxicated, drug users. The government then sought review from the Supreme Court, arguing that historic restrictions on “habitual drunkards” provided a basis for disarming regular drug users. The government contended that both historic and modern laws support the temporary disarmament of those who habitually use intoxicating substances.
Hemani’s lawyers countered that the law is unconstitutionally vague, failing to give clear notice of what behavior is prohibited, and that there was no historical tradition of stripping Americans of gun rights for using intoxicants with some frequency. As reported by the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School, they argued that the statute could ensnare millions of Americans, especially as many states have legalized marijuana.
The Supreme Court’s 9-0 ruling found that applying the federal law to Hemani infringed on his Second Amendment rights. The justices concluded that the government failed to show a historical tradition supporting such a sweeping prohibition. The ruling does not strike down the entire law but curtails its application, requiring a more direct link between drug use and gun possession—such as being intoxicated while armed.
This case drew significant attention from advocacy groups on both sides. Organizations like the National Rifle Association and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws supported Hemani, while groups including the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence backed the government’s position. The ruling may have broad implications for how federal law is enforced regarding gun ownership and drug use, especially in states where marijuana is legal under state law but remains prohibited federally.
Legal experts expect the government may now need to review its approach to similar cases, especially as the number of Americans who use marijuana continues to grow. Future legal challenges and possible legislative action could result as courts and lawmakers respond to the Supreme Court’s interpretation.