Hemani: the Court limits the federal gun ban for drug users, narrowly

The decision

On June 18, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Hemani that the federal law barring “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing a gun, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), violated the Second Amendment as applied to Ali Danial Hemani of Texas.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. The judgment was unanimous: Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan agreed with the result on narrower reasoning, while Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, wrote separate concurrences.

The facts

FBI agents searched Hemani’s home in 2022 and found a Glock 19 pistol, about 60 grams of marijuana and a small amount of cocaine. He said he used marijuana roughly every other day. He was charged under § 922(g)(3), a felony carrying up to 15 years in prison. A federal district judge dismissed the charge, and the Fifth Circuit agreed, holding the law could not be applied to a habitual user who was not shown to be under the influence while armed.

The reasoning

Applying Bruen and the 2024 Rahimi decision, the majority said the government had not shown a historical tradition of disarming someone in Hemani’s position. Founding-era laws aimed at “habitual drunkards” targeted different conduct, worked differently and usually involved some process before a person lost rights. The government’s theory, the Court said, would allow prosecution of anyone who regularly uses a controlled substance without any showing of danger or impairment.

What it does not decide

The Court did not strike down § 922(g)(3). It left open whether people addicted to drugs, people intoxicated while armed, or users shown to be dangerous can be prosecuted. It did not address other federal prohibitions, including the ban on gun possession by people with felony convictions. SCOTUSblog’s analysis described the ruling as a victory for the defendant with little guidance for lower courts.

Since June, the Court has turned away additional petitions raising § 922(g)(3), including one denied on October 5, suggesting it is content for now to let lower courts apply Hemani case by case.

Afterlight analysis

The practical effect is significant for the many Americans who use marijuana legally under state law but remain “unlawful users” under federal law. Prosecutors now face a higher bar in cases built only on regular use. Whether the drug-use question on the federal purchase form still disqualifies buyers remains a live issue for future litigation.