The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of a federal law that prohibits individuals who are “unlawful users of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing firearms. The case, United States v. Hemani, centers on whether past drug use alone can legally bar someone from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
The dispute began after FBI agents searched the home of Ali Danial Hemani in Texas, where they found a Glock 9 mm pistol, 60 grams of marijuana, and 4.7 grams of cocaine. Prosecutors charged him with violating the law, but Hemani argued that applying the statute to him violated the Constitution. A U.S. District Court judge initially dismissed the charge, citing a 2023 decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that invalidated similar convictions when there was no evidence of recent drug use. The government later appealed, seeking Supreme Court review.
The Justice Department defended the law, asserting that it targets “habitual” drug users and imposes a “limited, inherently temporary restriction” that can be lifted by ceasing unlawful behavior. It also framed the regulation as consistent with historical firearm restrictions, comparing it to early American laws barring guns from “habitual drunkards.” However, the case has drawn attention due to its broader implications for gun rights and drug policy.
The government’s stance contrasts with the Trump administration’s previous support for gun rights in other cases, such as a challenge to Hawaii’s strict firearm regulations. Meanwhile, Hemani’s attorneys contended that the prosecution focused on unrelated allegations, including his alleged ties to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and use of promethazine, while ignoring that he was not under the influence when the firearm was discovered.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case signals a potential shift in how courts balance gun rights against drug-related restrictions.