United States v. Hemani: Does the Second Amendment Extend to Drug Users?

In October 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider whether or not those who habitually use recreational drugs are protected under the Second Amendment. Marijuana remains a controlled substance on the federal level, and therefore this case puts into question whether medical marijuana cardholders, along with past and present habitual users, will retain their constitutional rights.

Why it’s Significant That Certiorari Was Granted 

Certiorari is essentially the Supreme Court’s discretionary review process for cases. Parties can ask the Court to hear a case by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. If at least four justices vote to grant it, the Court agrees to review the lower court’s decision. Importantly, denial of certiorari doesn’t automatically imply the lower court was right or wrong—it simply leaves that ruling in place and creates no Supreme Court precedent. 

In October 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to the government’s appeal. The Fifth Circuit (the lower court whose decision the government appealed) dismissed Ali Danial Hemani’s conviction, and held that § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional as applied to the case. The Supreme Court accepting review of this case is significant for two reasons. 

First, § 922(g)(3) is one of the most widely prosecuted federal laws in the country, so the Court’s eventual decision will have a widespread general impact. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the choice to grant certiorari indicates that the Supreme Court is willing to consider denying constitutional rights to certain citizens, like drug users, who commit nonviolent crimes. 

How We Got Here

Federal-level precedent for the interpretation of the Second Amendment has gone through a tumultuous evolution. Given the Amendment’s unusually short length and its arguably nebulous language, a much-debated aspect of it is whether or not anything (short of another Amendment) can constitutionally limit its applicability. 

Section 922(g)(3) of the U.S. Criminal Code is one such limitation—imposing a federal ban on firearm possession by anyone who is “addicted to” or “is an unlawful user of” a controlled substance. Since 2024, federal courts have tackled the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3) on many occasions, resulting in two key Fifth-Circuit cases that set the stage for the Supreme Court accepting the government’s appeal in Hemani. 

In 2024, the Fifth Circuit decided United States v. Connelly, where it rejected a challenge to § 922(g)(3), but held the statute unconstitutional as applied to a defendant who was a regular user but was not intoxicated at possession. The Fifth Circuit explained that the nation’s history of firearm regulation only supported disarming the actively impaired. 

A year later, in 2025, the Fifth Circuit heard United States v. Daniels, where it ultimately reversed a § 922(g)(3) conviction, reasoning that the temporal link between use and possession was too “nebulous” under Bruen, a key Second Amendment precedent decided in 2022. Like in Daniels, the Fifth Circuit simply applied the decision in Connelly to dismiss Hemani’s indictment under § 922(g)(3).

The Doctrinal Framework for the Second Amendment

Second Amendment cases, in recent years, have operated on a framework determined by two key Supreme Court precedents—New York State Rifle and Pistol Assn. v. Bruen (2022) and United States v. Rahimi (2024). Together, these cases provide a framework for the Court to determine whether statutory provisions (and convictions) are consistent with the Second Amendment. 

These cases established a two-part test. In 2022, Bruen marked the replacement of a previously used interest-balancing test—which weighed public safety against personal rights—with the current text-and-history test. 

Under Bruen’s framework, courts first consider whether the Second Amendment’s text covers the person, weapon, and conduct involved. If these are covered, the government must then show that the challenged law is consistent with the “Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Generally, this is done through identifying analogous restrictions during the founding, which are held to the standard of being “relevantly similar” in their justification and burden.

In 2024, Rahimi applied Bruen’s framework, upholding § 922(g)(8) of the U.S. Criminal Code—a statute temporarily disarming people subject to domestic violence restraining orders—consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation. This restriction was upheld because it matched closely with historical tools—like contractual enforcement (surety) laws and public fighting (affray) laws—used to disarm individuals found to pose a concrete threat.

What the Government is Arguing

In an attempt to have the Court reverse the Fifth Circuit’s dismissal of Hemani’s indictment, the government is arguing three main points. Firstly, in order to satisfy the Bruen framework, the government contends that founding-era drunkard laws are historically analogous to § 922(g)(3). Specifically, the government attempts to draw a parallel between founding-era laws that disarmed those publicly inebriated, and § 922(g)(3), which restricts gun ownership by “unlawful users” of controlled substances. 

The government further argues that the Fifth Circuit mistakenly required “proof of intoxication” in Hemani’s case, which was not required under § 922(g)(3). Finally, the government argues that, like § 922(g)(8), § 922(g)(3) is only temporary, since those subject to it can end the restriction by ceasing their “unlawful use[] of” or “addict[ion] to” controlled substances.

What Hemani’s Defense is Arguing

On the other side, Hemani’s defense presents counterpoints to each of the government’s arguments. First, Hemani’s defense has pointed to a lack of historical similarity between drunkard laws and § 922(g)(3). The important distinction the defense makes is that founding-era drunkard laws did not disarm citizens who were sober at the time, only those actively intoxicated. 

Hemani’s defense also highlights the ambiguity of the term “unlawful user”, as used in § 922(g)(3). Since “unlawful user” does not distinguish between current and habitual users, the statute risks allowing criminalization completely untethered to contemporaneous intoxication. This unclear language—Hemani’s defense argues—is what caused the Fifth Circuit to effectively require proof of intoxication in its application of § 922(g)(3).

Finally, Hemani’s defense presents—as a “common-sense” problem—the federal-state mismatch in terms of drug regulation. While many states have passed laws decriminalizing marijuana—or even legalizing it for medical/recreational purposes—it remains a controlled substance on the federal level, as per the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.

What Would a Decision Against Hemani Mean — Especially for Smokers?

A ruling against Hemani in the Supreme Court would certainly have practical consequences.  First and foremost, it would essentially act as permission for the government to revoke an individual’s Second Amendment rights because of habitual drug use—past or present. 

In effect, such a ruling would remove the necessity for a temporal link between drug use/ownership and gun possession for § 922(g)(3) to apply. This sets a dangerous precedent, endorsing the status-based revocation of constitutional rights based on past nonviolent offenses (such as drug use) or a history of addiction. 

Furthermore, because of the federal-state mismatch in the treatment of marijuana, there would be extensive practical consequences if the Court rules in favor of Hemani, broadly upholding § 922(g)(3). For example, medical marijuana cardholders, who acquired their cards legally through state processes, would be automatically banned from owning guns under federal law. 

In states where marijuana has been legalized, cannabis dispensaries may become unreasonably risky businesses. The gun-ownership rights of owners and employees of these dispensaries, who are more likely to be legal cannabis users, would be put at risk. Since dispensaries are typically cash-heavy businesses, being forced to operate without armed security could turn them into easy targets for criminals.

Image Source: Rockefeller Institute of Government