What Supreme Court Case, United States v. Hemani, Means for Gun Rights and Marijuana Use

The Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear firearms, including for self-defense. Like most constitutional rights, it is not unlimited. Federal and state governments and courts have long struggled with the limits of regulations concerning who may possess firearms, where firearms may be carried, and how they may be used. One federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), bars several categories of people from possessing guns, including people convicted of certain crimes, fugitives, and individuals subject to particular domestic violence restrictions.

A lesser-known part of the statute, § 922(g)(3) makes it unlawful for anyone who is an “unlawful user of” or “addicted to” a controlled substance to possess a firearm. Because marijuana remains a controlled substance under federal law while some states have legalized or decriminalized its use, questions exist as to whether § 922(g)(3) can create serious consequences for people who both use marijuana and own guns.

The Facts: What Happened in United States v. Hemani

On June 18, 2026, the Supreme Court addressed the limits of that rule in United States v. Hemani, 24-1234. The case involved Ali Hemani, a Texas resident who lived with his parents and worked a stable job. In 2022, federal agents searched the family home while investigating suspected terrorism-related activity. Hemani cooperated during the search. He surrendered a gun kept in the house, pointed agents to marijuana on the property, and agreed to an interview. During that interview, he told law enforcement that he used marijuana about every other day.

More than six months later, the government charged Hemani under § 922(g)(3). The charge was not about terrorism, even though that was the reason for the search. It was not about drug trafficking. It was not based on allegations that Hemani had threatened anyone, fired the weapon, carried it while intoxicated, or used it in connection with any crime. Instead, the prosecution theorized that because Hemani regularly used marijuana, he was an unlawful user of a controlled substance and therefore could not lawfully possess a gun in his home.

This theory carries severe consequences. A violation of § 922(g)(3) can expose a person to up to 15 years in federal prison. It can also lead to long-term, and, in some circumstances lifetime disarmament. In Hemani’s case, the government argued that his admitted marijuana use alone was enough to justify such severe consequences.

The Supreme Court disagreed. Applying precedent developed in recent Second Amendment cases, the Court explained that judges must begin by asking whether the Second Amendment covers the conduct at issue. If yes, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The burden then shifts to the government to show that its restriction is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The Legal Background: Historical Tradition

That test does not require the government to find an identical law from the 19th Century. Modern problems may call for modern laws, and courts may reason by meaningful historical analogy. In particular, the Court looks at both the “why” and the “how” of the regulation. In plain terms, courts ask whether the old and new laws were aimed at similar problems and whether they restricted rights in similar ways.

Here, the government’s main historical comparison was to laws regulating “habitual drunkards.” According to the government, those laws showed that American legal tradition allowed legislatures to restrict the liberties of people who regularly used intoxicating substances. If governments historically could regulate habitual drunkards, the argument went, then Congress today should be able to disarm unlawful drug users.

The Court found that analogy too broad. Historical habitual-drunkard laws did not generally apply to people merely because they drank regularly. In early America, drinking was common, and regular alcohol use alone did not ordinarily make someone a “habitual drunkard” in the legal sense. The historical laws identified by the government tended to focus on people whose drinking made them practically incapacitated, unable to manage their own affairs, or dangerous to themselves or others.

That distinction was critical. The government did not claim Hemani was addicted to marijuana, nor did it claim he was under the influence of marijuana or otherwise intoxicated while possessing the firearm. Moreover, the government did not claim his marijuana use made him unable to manage his affairs or that he posed a danger to himself or others. And the government did not allege that Hemani used the firearm unlawfully. On the government’s theory, regular marijuana use alone was enough.

The Court also focused on process. Many historical laws involving habitual drunkards required some form of proceeding before a person lost liberty or legal rights. By contrast, under the government’s reading of § 922(g)(3), a person could lose the right to possess a firearm immediately.

The Decision: The Supreme Court’s Ruling

In the Court’s view, the government’s historical examples did not support such a sweeping rule. A categorical firearms ban based only on regular marijuana use, without individualized proof that the person was dangerous or incapacitated, was not sufficiently tied to the historical tradition the government relied on. The Court therefore held that the prosecution of Hemani under § 922(g)(3)’s unlawful-user provision was inconsistent with the Second Amendment and affirmed dismissal of the indictment.

It should be noted, Hemani is an intentionally narrow decision. The Court did not hold that every application of § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional. Rather, the Court left the door open for constitutional review of other firearm restriction laws and individual circumstances. Moreover, Hemani does not provide clarity for the conflict between state marijuana laws and federal law, and the Court certainly does not say that drugs and guns are always a safe or constitutionally protected mix. However, it does say that the government cannot automatically strip a person of Second Amendment rights based solely on a broad label, without showing that the restriction fits within the country’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

For gun owners, criminal defendants, and policymakers, the case is significant because it reinforces a broader constitutional principle. When the government seeks to disarm an entire category of people, it must do more than identify a public-safety concern in general terms. It must show that the law targets a historically recognized risk in a historically comparable way. In Hemani’s case, the Supreme Court concluded that the government had not met that burden.

Legal changes can be confusing, but you don’t have to navigate them alone. If you have questions about United States v. Hemani or worry your gun rights have been infringed, West & Dunn can help. Contact us by phone at 608-535-6420 or through our Contact Us page.