>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Still, Gorsuch drew a firm line against blanket lifetime restrictions based solely on periodic drug use. “In saying this much, we do not question that sometimes an individual’s unlawful use of marijuana (or any other controlled substance) may render him a danger to others,” Gorsuch wrote. “But, again, the government disclaims the need to show anything like that in this case.”
The case involved Ali Hemani, a dual U.S.-Pakistan citizen who had been under FBI scrutiny over alleged connections to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, which the U.S. government designates as a foreign terrorist organization. During a 2022 search of his Texas residence, Hemani acknowledged owning a Glock 9mm handgun and admitted to using marijuana “about every other day.”
Although federal prosecutors initially considered pursuing more serious allegations, they ultimately charged him under the drug-user firearm prohibition. That charge alone carries a potential penalty of up to 15 years in prison.
However, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the government’s position. The court ruled that, under the Supreme Court’s 2022 precedent requiring firearm laws to be consistent with historical tradition, the ban could not be applied so broadly. Judges noted that while history supports limits on individuals actively intoxicated while carrying weapons, it does not justify permanently disarming someone based only on past or routine substance use.
The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to overturn that ruling, pointing to historical-era regulations on habitual drinkers. But defense attorney Erin Murphy countered that those laws were aimed at individuals actively intoxicated, not people who simply engaged in legal or semi-regular consumption. She argued during oral proceedings that the modern statute casts too wide a net over ordinary behavior that many Americans engage in without becoming dangerous.
The Court ultimately sided with that narrower historical interpretation. Gorsuch rejected the government’s analogy to past alcohol restrictions, writing that they were not comparable in purpose or scope. He noted that early laws cited by prosecutors “targeted different kinds of people, did so for different purposes, and operated in different ways.”
He added a historical observation underscoring the difference between past and present standards: “Had habitual drunkard laws applied to those who simply drank regularly,” he said, “many notable early Americans could have faced trouble.”
Gorsuch also referenced historical figures to illustrate the point, noting that John Adams drank a tankard of hard cider for breakfast and that Thomas Jefferson enjoyed three or four glasses of wine with dinner. The implication, according to the Court, is that routine consumption alone was never historically treated as a disqualifier for civic rights such as firearm possession.
The decision was welcomed by a broad coalition that included gun rights advocates, cannabis reform supporters, and the American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang said, “With nearly half of Americans reporting marijuana use at some point in their lives, this ruling protects the rights of millions and curbs the government’s ability to impose arbitrary and discriminatory penalties,”
Gun safety organizations, however, defended the federal statute, arguing it remains an important safeguard to keep firearms away from individuals deemed at higher risk of irresponsible behavior. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers added another dimension to the debate, arguing that the law is sometimes used as a prosecutorial shortcut rather than a targeted public safety measure.
According to the group, the statute is often leveraged in plea negotiations or used as a fallback charge when more serious allegations do not hold up in court. Hemani’s case, they argued, reflected that pattern, since prosecutors ultimately relied on the drug-use firearm charge after other claims weakened.
Federal officials maintain that more than 300 individuals per year are charged under the provision, which they say remains a critical tool in preventing firearms from being possessed by dangerous or impaired individuals. The law itself traces back to the aftermath of major national tragedies, including the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., which prompted sweeping federal reforms in gun regulation.
The ruling also carries political undertones, given that Hunter Biden was convicted in 2024 of violating the same statute in connection with a firearm purchase during a period of documented drug addiction, later receiving a pardon from President Joe Biden.
For Second Amendment advocates, the Court’s decision represents another clear indication that broad categorical restrictions on gun ownership will face increasing scrutiny unless the government can demonstrate a concrete and individualized danger rather than relying on general assumptions tied to drug use.
