Washington D.C. — The Supreme Court on October 20, 2025 granted review in a case that asks whether a federal law barring firearm possession by illegal drug users violates the Second Amendment. The case, United States v. Hemani (No. 24‑1234), arises from the conviction of Ali Danial Hemani, a Texas resident indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) for possessing a handgun while being an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

Hemani’s indictment followed a Bureau of Investigation search of his home, where agents found a 9mm pistol, about 60 grams of marijuana and roughly 4.7 grams of cocaine. He had admitted to use of those substances. He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that his Second Amendment rights were infringed because the statute failed to define when drug use triggers the firearm prohibition.

The district court granted dismissal, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed in early 2025, holding that § 922(g)(3) could not constitutionally be applied to someone who was sober during the firearm possession and whose drug use did not clearly coincide with the gun possession. The government appealed, urging the Supreme Court to clarify the boundaries of gun regulation and drug‐user disarmament.

The issues before the Court are weighty: whether prohibiting gun possession by people who use controlled substances is consistent with the Second Amendment under the “historical tradition” test newly reaffirmed by the Court, and whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied to an individual whose firearm use was not contemporaneous with drug use.

On one side, the government argues that lawmakers have long disarmed individuals whom they deem to present elevated risk — including persons convicted of major crimes — and that drug use poses risks that justify a categorical prohibition. On the other side, challengers say that modern‑era marijuana use, which may be lawful at state level or occur well prior to firearm possession, lacks meaningful historical precedent for disarmament, and that the statute offers no clear standard for when a user becomes barred.

The decision could ripple far beyond this case. With nearly half the states having legalized recreational or medical marijuana, and many more relaxing their laws, millions of Americans could be affected if the Court broadly upholds or limits the government’s ability to disarm users of controlled substances. Legal observers note that if § 922(g)(3) is upheld, it may bolster similar laws; if struck down, it could invite challenges to other firearm‐possession prohibitions (including those for felons or other categories).

The Supreme Court is likely to hear arguments in early 2026 and issue its decision by the end of the term, around June or July. The outcome will mark a major milestone in the evolving jurisprudence of the Second Amendment — especially as the Court balances individual gun rights with public‐safety concerns in the modern context of drug legalization and changing societal norms.