Supreme Court Strikes Down Federal Law Banning Guns for Unlawful Drug Users

The Supreme Court struck down a portion of a federal law on Thursday that prohibited “unlawful users” of controlled substances, such as marijuana, from owning firearms. All nine justices ruled the law was overly broad and overly harsh, affirming a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the case of U.S. vs. Hemani.

The ruling affects a federal statute dating back to 1968, which banned gun possession for felons, fugitives, and any person categorized as an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” Convictions under this law can result in 15-year prison terms, according to Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

Why did the Supreme Court rule against the drug-related gun ban?

The justices found the law’s application too categorical. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote that the law automatically bans gun possession from the moment someone becomes an unlawful user until they stop, regardless of the substance used, the amount, or whether the person is a danger to others.

Gorsuch noted that the government’s position implies millions of regular marijuana users are “categorically and unusually dangerous.” This reasoning rejected an argument from Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, who claimed “habitual” drug users were similar to “habitual drunkards” in early American history.

Did You Know? Since 1968, federal law has prohibited gun possession by felons, fugitives, and any person who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

How does this ruling affect current gun laws?

The court’s decision is limited. The justices left open the possibility that “addicts” and people deemed “unusually dangerous” while impaired by drugs could still be denied firearms.

Cecillia Wang, legal director at the ACLU, stated the ruling protects millions of Americans and stops the government from using “arbitrary and discriminatory penalties” based on unfounded assumptions. Conversely, Janet Carter of Everytown Law disagreed with the ruling, though she noted the court acknowledged that drugs and guns can be a “dangerous mix.”

Expert Insight: Samantha Carter notes that this ruling shifts the legal burden from a categorical status—simply being a drug user—to a requirement for specific proof of danger. By rejecting the “habitual drunkard” analogy, the court has limited the government’s ability to use historical parallels to justify broad 2nd Amendment restrictions.

Who was Ali Hemani and how did this case start?

Ali Hemani, a Texas man, was charged with possessing a firearm as an unlawful habitual user of marijuana after admitting he used the drug nearly every other day. The Trump administration urged the court to uphold his prosecution.

Supreme Court rules against government in gun case involving drug use

Hemani had been investigated by the FBI for suspected terrorist ties. According to the administration, Hemani and his parents traveled to Iran in 2020 to celebrate the life of Qasem Suleimani, an Iranian general killed by a U.S. drone strike. A subsequent FBI search of Hemani’s home uncovered a Glock 9-millimeter pistol, 60 grams of marijuana, and 4.7 grams of cocaine.

What happens next for 2nd Amendment challenges?

The court may soon rule on other gun-related restrictions. A challenge to laws in Hawaii and California is currently pending in the case of Wolford vs. Lopez.

Those laws prohibit carrying firearms into private businesses without express approval from a manager or owner. Gun rights advocates argue these laws are designed to deny the right to carry concealed weapons. The justices are expected to issue decisions on this matter next Tuesday and Thursday.

The case mirrors previous legal battles over gun ownership and drug use, such as the prosecution of Hunter Biden. Two years ago, Biden was convicted under the same federal gun law for lying on a permit application about his drug use. Then-President Biden issued him a full pardon in December 2024.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is Ali Hemani?
Hemani is a Texas man and regular marijuana user who was investigated by the FBI for suspected ties to terrorists after traveling to Iran in 2020.

What was the government’s argument in U.S. vs. Hemani?
Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued that habitual drug users are similar to “habitual drunkards” in early American history and should be denied 2nd Amendment rights.

Does this ruling mean all drug users can now own guns?
No. The Supreme Court left open the possibility that “addicts” and those who are “unusually dangerous” while impaired could still be denied firearms.

Do you believe gun ownership restrictions should be based on a person’s drug use history or their current level of impairment?