WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court signaled uncertainty about whether federal law can bar marijuana users from owning firearms as justices heard arguments in United States v. Hemani, a case that could have far-reaching implications for gun laws and cannabis policy.
The case stems from an August 2022 search of a suburban home in Denton County, Texas. FBI agents executed a warrant at the residence of Ali Daniel Hemani, a U.S. citizen, as part of an investigation involving alleged ties to a foreign terrorist organization.
During the search, agents found a Glock 9mm pistol, about 60 grams of marijuana, and a small amount of cocaine that Hemani said he had purchased months earlier but claimed his mother had hidden from him. Hemani told agents he used marijuana “about every other day.”
Although Hemani and members of his family were never charged with terrorism-related offenses, he spent seven months in pretrial detention after authorities sought to hold him based on suspected links to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
About six months after the search, a federal grand jury charged Hemani with a single count of possessing a firearm as an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3).
Hemani was not charged with distributing drugs, and court filings say there was no evidence he was under the influence when the firearm was discovered.
His attorneys moved to dismiss the charge, arguing the statute violates the Second Amendment when applied to someone whose firearm possession was based solely on past marijuana use. A federal district court agreed and dismissed the case, a decision later upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
During oral arguments, the justices focused heavily on how the court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen should apply to modern gun restrictions. That ruling requires firearm regulations to align with the nation’s historical tradition of gun laws.
Government attorneys argued that Hemani’s case could be compared to historical restrictions on ‘habitual drunkards,’ suggesting lawmakers in earlier eras limited firearm access for individuals believed to pose safety risks.
Several justices questioned whether that comparison holds.
Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed government lawyers on how the law defines an ‘unlawful user’ and what level of drug use should trigger a firearm ban.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett also raised concerns, asking whether occasional marijuana use automatically makes someone dangerous under federal law.
“Is it the government’s position that if I unlawfully use Ambien or Xanax, then I become dangerous?” Barrett asked. “What is the government’s evidence that using marijuana a couple times a week makes someone dangerous?”
Defense attorney Erin Murphy, representing Hemani, argued the statute lacks clear standards and fails to give individuals fair notice about what level of drug use would strip them of their gun rights.
“The statute fails to provide fair notice of what makes someone an unlawful user of a controlled substance,” Murphy told the court.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also highlighted the difficulty courts face applying the Bruen decision’s historical analysis, noting that judges are often forced to interpret centuries-old laws when evaluating modern firearm regulations.
Legal experts say the case could have broad consequences because cannabis remains illegal under federal law, even though many states have legalized medical or recreational use.
Hayley Lawrence, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, said the ruling could affect millions of gun owners in states where marijuana is legal under state law but prohibited federally.
“The narrowest outcome would be a decision that Hemani does not meet the government’s definition of an unlawful user,” Lawrence said.
Gun rights advocates and gun violence prevention groups are closely watching the case.
Kostas Moros of the Second Amendment Foundation said the case resonates with many Americans who view marijuana use as common and not inherently dangerous.
“Most people would conclude that simply being a marijuana user doesn’t make someone a dangerous person,” Moros said.
Meanwhile, gun violence prevention advocates warn that weakening the law could complicate background checks.
The current system stems from the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which created the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to determine whether gun buyers are legally eligible to possess firearms.
Shira Lauren Feldman of Brady: United Against Gun Violence said requiring case-by-case determinations could undermine the background check process.
“If the court were to require individualized fact-finding in every case, that could create significant challenges for the administration of the background check system,” Feldman said.
However the justices rule, the decision could reshape how courts evaluate firearm restrictions tied to drug use and other categories of prohibited gun owners.
“If the government cannot make informed decisions about who poses a risk of misuse,” Lawrence said, “that could have major consequences for gun violence prevention laws.”
A ruling in United States v. Hemani is expected later this year.
