United States v. Hemani
Whether the federal law prohibiting unlawful users of controlled substances from possessing firearms, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), violates the Second Amendment as applied to a person who uses marijuana.
Oral Argument Recording
Via Spotify ↗
Background & Facts
Ali Danial Hemani was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), a federal law that makes it illegal for anyone who is 'an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance' to possess a firearm. Marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law, making its use illegal federally even in states where it has been legalized. Hemani challenged his prosecution, arguing that applying this firearms ban to marijuana users violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas sided with the government, upholding the law. However, Hemani appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court. The Fifth Circuit, in a January 31, 2025 decision, found that the government had failed to demonstrate that the prohibition on firearms possession by marijuana users was consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, as required by the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
The federal government then petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit's decision, and the Court agreed to hear the case. The case now presents the Supreme Court with a significant opportunity to clarify how the historical tradition test from Bruen applies to categorical bans on gun ownership by people engaged in disfavored or illegal conduct.
Why This Case Matters
This case is one of the most consequential Second Amendment cases since the Supreme Court's landmark 2022 Bruen decision, which required courts to evaluate gun laws based on whether they fit within America's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The outcome will determine whether the federal government can continue to enforce one of its most broadly applied gun prohibitions — § 922(g)(3) — against the millions of Americans who use marijuana, including in states where it is legal under state law. Circuit courts have been deeply divided on this question, and a ruling here will set binding precedent nationwide.
Beyond marijuana, the Court's reasoning could have sweeping implications for other categorical firearms bans in § 922(g), such as those covering felons and people with mental illness, since they all rest on similar justifications about disarming persons deemed dangerous or untrustworthy. A decision that strictly limits how the government may justify such prohibitions could reshape federal gun law fundamentally, while a ruling that provides the government more latitude could stabilize the existing framework. The case also sits at the intersection of federal drug policy and Second Amendment rights, touching on the ongoing national debate over marijuana legalization.
The Circuit Split
Following the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen, circuits have split on whether § 922(g)(3)'s prohibition on firearm possession by users of controlled substances — particularly marijuana — is constitutional. Some circuits have upheld the law under historical tradition analysis, while others have found it unconstitutional as applied to marijuana users.
Section 922(g)(3) is constitutional
Holds that § 922(g)(3)'s prohibition on firearm possession by unlawful drug users is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation and survives Second Amendment scrutiny.
Section 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional as applied
Holds that § 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment as applied to marijuana users because the government has not demonstrated a historical tradition of disarming persons who use intoxicating substances.
The Arguments
The federal government argues that § 922(g)(3) is constitutional because the Founders understood that the right to keep and bear arms did not extend to persons who posed a danger to society, and that drug users — who are subject to intoxication and impaired judgment — fall within this historical category. The government contends that the Fifth Circuit applied Bruen too rigidly by demanding a historical twin to the modern statute rather than looking at broader historical principles. Courts should uphold reasonable, principle-based analogies to founding-era laws rather than require identical historical precursors.
- Historical laws disarming 'dangerous' or 'unvirtuous' persons provide sufficient analogical support for § 922(g)(3).
- The Founders recognized that intoxication and impaired judgment were grounds for restricting civic participation, including arms-bearing.
- Bruen requires a 'relevantly similar' historical tradition, not an exact historical duplicate of modern statutes.
- Striking down § 922(g)(3) would threaten the constitutionality of other longstanding § 922(g) prohibitions and undermine public safety.
Hemani argues that the government cannot identify a sufficiently analogous historical tradition of disarming marijuana or drug users, and therefore § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional as applied to him. Under Bruen's test, the government bears the burden of showing that a modern gun restriction is consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation, and a broad categorical ban on all drug users lacks any clear founding-era parallel. Because marijuana use alone does not make someone dangerous in a way that historically justified disarmament, the Second Amendment protects his right to possess firearms.
- The government has not identified a founding-era law that categorically disarmed substance users or drug users.
- Historical laws cited by the government — such as laws disarming the intoxicated — applied only during actual intoxication, not as a permanent status-based ban.
- Marijuana users are not categorically dangerous, and dangerousness must be individually assessed, not presumed from status.
- Bruen forbids the government from relying on broad historical principles untethered to specific historical analogues to justify modern arms restrictions.
Precedent Cases Cited
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen
597 U.S. 1
Bruen established the controlling legal test: modern gun regulations are constitutional only if the government can demonstrate they are consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation at the time of the founding. This is the framework both parties invoke to argue their positions.
District of Columbia v. Heller
554 U.S. 570
Heller first recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, and its dicta noting that certain 'presumptively lawful' regulations — including prohibitions on possession by felons and the mentally ill — inform the debate over whether similar categorical bans on drug users are constitutional.
McDonald v. City of Chicago
561 U.S. 742
McDonald incorporated the Second Amendment against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, confirming that the individual right recognized in Heller applies nationwide and reinforcing the constitutional baseline at issue in this case.
United States v. Rahimi
602 U.S. 680
Rahimi upheld the federal law prohibiting gun possession by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders, clarifying that Bruen's historical tradition test does not require a precise historical twin but rather a 'relevantly similar' analogue. Both sides cite Rahimi to support their competing interpretations of how strictly the government must match historical precedent.
United States v. Vongxay
594 F.3d 1111
This Ninth Circuit case upholding the felon-in-possession ban is frequently cited in debates over categorical § 922(g) prohibitions, as lower courts have used its reasoning to extend similar logic to drug users, though its pre-Bruen methodology is now contested.
Range v. Attorney General
69 F.4th 96
The Third Circuit's en banc decision in Range — holding that a non-violent felon retained Second Amendment rights — is frequently cited to show that the historical tradition test can limit categorical firearms bans, supporting the respondent's argument that marijuana users cannot be permanently disarmed by status alone.
Legal Terminology
Analysis & Opinions
The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon in United States v. Hemani, a case addressing whether drug users can be prohibited from possessing firearms under the Second Amendment. The decision is anticipated to reignite debates over both the Court's Second Amendment jurisprudence and whether justices apply a different legal standard in cases involving drugs.