The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Monday in United States v. Hemani, a case that could reshape how federal law treats gun ownership for individuals who use illegal drugs. At issue is whether the Second Amendment renders 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which is the federal statute that prohibits people who are “unlawful users” of controlled substances from possessing firearms, unconstitutional. The case arrived at the court after the Fifth Circuit struck down the law as unconstitutional when applied to Texas resident Ali Danial Hemani, who admitted to using marijuana but was not shown to be under the influence while owning a firearm.
During Monday’s arguments, several justices appeared sympathetic to Hemani’s challenge and skeptical of the government’s sweeping interpretation of the statute. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether the law too broadly categorizes drug users as dangerous, noting that millions of Americans legally use marijuana under state laws and that the government’s approach could extend even to benign prescription medications. The court also wrestled with historical analogies, including the government’s reliance on founding‑era restrictions on “habitual drunkards,” a comparison several justices found strained.
At the same time, the justices signaled uncertainty about how far their eventual ruling should reach. Some appeared inclined to craft a narrow decision—one focused solely on whether the government demonstrated that Hemani posed a danger to society—rather than issue a broad ruling that would invalidate the federal prohibition nationwide.
A final decision is likely months away, but the implications could be significant. A broad ruling could affect similar federal restrictions and reshape firearm rights for those who use marijuana or other controlled substances. For additional context on how marijuana use intersects with gun ownership, see our earlier analysis.
