WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that a federal prohibition on firearm possession by unlawful users of controlled substances could not be broadly applied to a Texas marijuana user, a decision that legal observers say is likely to prompt new challenges to certain gun restrictions under the Constitution’s Second Amendment.
In a unanimous 9-0 decision issued on June 18, the court upheld a lower-court ruling that dismissed a firearms charge against Ali Hemani, a Texas resident who acknowledged regular marijuana use. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court, said the government had failed to demonstrate that applying the law in Hemani’s case was consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
“We appreciate that drugs and guns can sometimes make for a dangerous mix,” Gorsuch wrote. However, he concluded that the federal statute, as applied in the case, could not satisfy the constitutional standard established by the court’s recent Second Amendment jurisprudence.
The case centered on a provision of the 1968 Gun Control Act that bars firearm possession by anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. Federal prosecutors had argued that the restriction was consistent with historical laws aimed at preventing dangerous individuals from carrying weapons. The court rejected that argument in Hemani’s case, finding insufficient historical support for such a broad application of the law.
The ruling did not invalidate the statute entirely. The justices indicated that narrower restrictions targeting individuals who are demonstrably dangerous, addicted to drugs, or actively impaired may still withstand constitutional scrutiny. Several concurring opinions emphasized that the decision was limited to the facts before the court.
Gun-rights advocates welcomed the ruling, while supporters of firearm regulations expressed concern that it could make it more difficult for governments to enforce certain restrictions. Legal experts noted that the decision follows the court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires firearm regulations to be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of gun laws.
The Supreme Court has also continued to receive petitions involving other firearm regulations, including challenges to bans on certain semiautomatic weapons, magazine-capacity limits, licensing requirements and restrictions affecting other categories of gun owners. Court records and legal observers have indicated that several such cases remain pending.
As of Thursday, no broad ruling affecting other federal or state firearm restrictions had been issued. However, attorneys involved in Second Amendment litigation have begun citing the Hemani decision in ongoing and prospective legal challenges, according to court filings and legal commentary.
