WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a federal law prohibiting gun possession by unlawful users of controlled substances is unconstitutional as applied to a Texas man who regularly uses marijuana.
In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the court sided with Ali Danial Hemani, reversing his conviction under the law and limiting its application to cases involving demonstrated risks.
The case centered on 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), part of federal firearms law that bars anyone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to” a controlled substance from possessing guns. Hemani was charged after FBI agents searching his home in 2023 found a Glock 19 pistol, marijuana and a small amount of cocaine. He told agents he used marijuana roughly every other day, leading to the felony charge, which can carry up to 15 years in prison.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had previously struck down the application of the law to Hemani, and the Supreme Court upheld that ruling. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion, applying the framework from the court’s 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision. That requires gun regulations to align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm restrictions.
Historical analogues cited by the government, such as laws targeting armed individuals who were dangerously intoxicated or incapacitated, did not sufficiently match the broad prohibition on regular marijuana users who pose no evident danger, the opinion stated.
Hemani’s attorneys argued the law violated his Second Amendment rights, noting he kept the gun securely at home for self-defense and was not impaired at the time of possession. The Trump administration had defended the statute, seeking to prosecute such cases.
The decision comes as marijuana laws have liberalized in many states, creating tension with longstanding federal restrictions. It is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings expanding Second Amendment protections since Bruen.
Attorney General’s office representatives did not immediately comment on the ruling’s broader implications. Gun rights advocates welcomed the outcome, while some public safety groups expressed concerns about potential risks, though the court left room for prosecutions where evidence of danger exists.
The ruling is narrow, applying specifically to Hemani’s circumstances as a non-dangerous casual user, and does not entirely invalidate the statute. Details on how lower courts will interpret it in future cases remain to be seen.
Hemani, a Texas-born dual U.S.-Pakistani citizen, cooperated with authorities during the search. The court’s decision vacates his conviction.
