Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the federal government cannot prosecute a Texas man for owning a firearm simply because he uses marijuana, landing another hit on the gun bans the government has tried to defend since Bruen.

In United States v. Hemani, the Court held that prosecuting Ali Hemani under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), the provision banning gun possession by any “unlawful user” of a controlled substance, violated his Second Amendment rights.

Hemani, a dual U.S. and Pakistani citizen born in Texas, told federal agents during a 2022 search of his family home that he used marijuana about every other day. He cooperated fully and handed over a gun he kept in the house. More than six months later, relying on that admission alone, the government charged him under 922(g)(3). For that, he faced up to 15 years in prison and a lifetime ban on owning a firearm.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the main opinion. The government tried to save the ban by comparing it to founding-era “habitual drunkard” laws. Gorsuch took that analogy apart piece by piece. Those old laws, he wrote, targeted people so impaired by drink that they could not manage their own affairs, not anyone who simply used an intoxicant. They served different purposes, reached different people, and almost always required some legal process before anyone lost a right. Section 922(g)(3) does none of that. It disarms a person automatically, the moment the government decides he is a user, with no hearing at all.

The decision was unanimous. All nine justices agreed Hemani’s prosecution had to fall, and not a single one dissented. Justice Gorsuch wrote for seven members of the Court. Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan agreed with the result and wrote separately, reaching the same conclusion on a narrower path. If you saw “9-0” today, that is correct.

The Court kept the ruling narrow on purpose. Gorsuch made clear the decision does not touch the bans on felons or the mentally ill owning guns, does not reach drug addicts or anyone actually intoxicated, and leaves room for prosecutions backed by individualized proof that a person’s drug use makes him dangerous.

What it does reject is the government’s central claim, that it can strip a fundamental right from millions of Americans on a categorical say-so. The Justice Department argued that marijuana users as a class are dangerous enough to disarm. The Court refused to hand over that kind of power, warning it would let the government “quickly swallow” the Second Amendment.

More from USA Carry:

Justice Clarence Thomas went further in a solo concurrence, questioning whether Congress even has authority under the Commerce Clause to criminalize possession of a gun that crossed state lines at some point in the past. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor used their concurrence to renew their call to scrap the Bruen history-and-tradition test altogether.

This is the same statute used to convict Hunter Biden in 2024, as NPR noted in its coverage of the ruling.

The decision settles Hemani’s case but not the larger fight. By inviting prosecutions built on individualized proof of danger, the Court all but guaranteed the government will be back to test the limits. I will keep tracking how the lower courts and the Justice Department respond to Hemani.