The Supreme Court of the United States on Capitol Hill, photographed on Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2023, in Washington, DC. (Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
The Supreme Court has ruled that a federal law automatically banning unlawful drug users from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, dealing a major blow to the government’s efforts to disarm individuals over routine drug use.
In a decision delivered by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the high court found that the government’s prosecution of Ali Danial Hemani, who admitted to owning a gun while using marijuana a few times a week, violates the Second Amendment.
Ali Hemani
Ali Hemani is a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan who was born in Texas and has spent most of his life in the Dallas area.
The backstory:
Law enforcement searched the Hemani family home in 2022 under suspicion of terrorism-related activities. Mr. Hemani was fully cooperative: he surrendered a gun, pointed out marijuana on the property, and admitted during an interview that he used marijuana "about every other day."
No terrorism or drug-trafficking charges were ever brought. Instead, more than six months later, the government used his admission to indict him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) for knowingly possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance. This charge carried a penalty of up to 15 years in prison and a lifetime ban on firearm possession.
Hemani moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(3) violated his Second Amendment rights. Both the federal district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in his favor, dismissing the indictment.
The ruling:
The ruling strikes down the enforcement framework of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), a provision of the Gun Control Act that automatically divests individuals of their right to bear arms the moment they become an unlawful user of a controlled substance. Under the law, violators face up to 15 years in prison and a lifetime firearms ban.
"When the government crosses the line from permissible regulation into unconstitutional infringement, courts have a duty to say so," Gorsuch wrote.
High court rejects "habitual drunkard" analogy
To defend the law under the Supreme Court's established Second Amendment framework, the federal government bore the burden of showing that the drug ban was "consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
The government tried to justify the statute by comparing modern drug users to historical "habitual drunkard" laws from the founding era, which included vagrancy laws, civil-commitment statutes, and surety laws. The government argued that these historical laws similarly restricted the liberties of those who regularly used intoxicants to protect the public from violent crime.
The Supreme Court rejected that analogy entirely, stating it failed on every metric.
The court noted that under historical standards, a "habitual drunkard" was someone whose drinking rendered them practically incapacitated, mentally incompetent, or unable to manage their own affairs.
Conversely, the government's interpretation of § 922(g)(3) would automatically disarm anyone who regularly used any amount of a controlled substance, including a person taking a spouse’s sleeping medication or a student using a friend’s ADHD prescription to study, without any showing of impairment or danger.
"To state the analogy is to expose its deficiency," Gorsuch wrote.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that historical laws targeted vagrancy to promote economic productivity or used civil commitments to protect individuals from self-inflicted financial ruin, rather than to protect the public from categorical firearm violence.
The court also took issue with the "how" of the modern statute. While historical laws required due process, such as a jury conviction, a probate court hearing, or a proceeding before a justice of the peace, before an individual lost their liberties, § 922(g)(3) operated as an immediate, automatic deprivation of a constitutional right.
The case, United States v. Hemani, reached the Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari following a previous ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The Source: Information in this article is from the Supreme Court decision filing