On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Hemani, a case that challenges whether federal law can permanently bar Americans who regularly use marijuana or other controlled substances from owning firearms.
The justices showed differing views on how historical laws relate to this issue but were generally skeptical about applying the ban to non-impaired, occasional, or moderate users. This suggests a possible win for Ali Danial Hemani and could affect millions of cannabis users in states where marijuana is legal.
The case centers on 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which makes it illegal for anyone “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess firearms or ammunition. Marijuana remains a Schedule I drug under federal law, even though many states have legalized or decriminalized it and there are ongoing efforts to reschedule it.
In 2022, FBI agents searched Hemani’s home in Texas and found a pistol, some marijuana, and trace amounts of cocaine. Hemani admitted to using marijuana every other day but was charged only with violating § 922(g)(3). There was no claim he was intoxicated while possessing the gun.
Hemani argued that applying this statute violated his Second Amendment rights. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with him, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen from 2022. That ruling requires current gun restrictions to be consistent with historical firearm regulations. The Fifth Circuit said § 922(g)(3) should apply only if the government proves someone was actually impaired while possessing a firearm; past use alone is not enough.
Representing the government, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris defended the law as a “modest, temporary” restriction on people who pose risks by mixing guns and mind-altering substances. She cited early American laws disarming habitual drunkards and others considered public safety risks without needing proof they were always intoxicated when armed.
Harris also argued that these restrictions can be reversed if someone stops using drugs and noted differences between illegal drugs and alcohol due to their federal status and potential for abuse.
Hemani’s attorney Erin E. Murphy countered that historical laws targeted severe cases—those who were unable to function due to intoxication—not moderate users like her client. She stated: “Historical ‘habitual drunkard’ laws focused on severe, life-disrupting intoxication, people who were ‘falling-down drunk,’ neglecting families, or unable to function, not moderate or occasional users.” Murphy asked the court either to limit the ban only to those proven impaired or strike it entirely for “unlawful users,” though she conceded that rules about addiction may have more support in history.
Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether regular drinkers among America’s founders would have lost their gun rights under such logic: “Isn’t it just enough to say that is not a habitual drunkard?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised concerns about how broad application could affect lawful prescription drug users: “She asked whether lawful users of Ambien, Xanax, or even Robitussin who exceed dosage become ‘unlawful users’ subject to lifetime disarmament.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out there was no evidence Congress found all marijuana users dangerous with guns; Sotomayor noted historic laws required proof of loss of self-control affecting daily life.
Chief Justice John Roberts worried about courts being overwhelmed by hearings over dangerousness while Justice Samuel Alito suggested modern synthetic drugs might require stricter rules than those for alcohol.
No final decision has been made yet but most justices seemed ready at least to rule for Hemani specifically—likely requiring proof of present impairment or clear danger before stripping gun rights under § 922(g)(3). A divided opinion is possible when a ruling comes later this year.
If adopted broadly, such a decision could allow many state-legal marijuana users access to firearms again and would likely require changes in ATF procedures as well as impact ongoing debates over federal drug scheduling policy.
According to its official website, Buckeye Firearms Association focuses its advocacy on defending individual firearm ownership rights for purposes including self-defense and recreation within Ohio. The organization provides alerts on relevant legislation and political developments affecting gun rights through its grassroots efforts (source).
The outcome of United States v. Hemani will be closely watched for its effects on both Second Amendment jurisprudence and federal regulation regarding drug use.
