Can Illegal Drug Users Possess Firearms? SCOTUS Gun Rulings Explained

Can the federal government restrict a person’s Second Amendment rights because they use a controlled substance? In United States v. Hemani (2026), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government can’t constitutionally prosecute someone based solely on their regular marijuana use and possession of a handgun.

While the Hemani decision presents a victory for the defendant, the Court emphasized that its decision was narrow, leaving lower courts with questions going forward. If you need legal help regarding Second Amendment issues, consult an experienced civil rights attorney in your area.

What Is the Federal Gun Control Act?

The federal Gun Control Act (GCA) lists categories of people who are prohibited from owning firearms, including:

• Felons
• Fugitives
• Domestic violence offenders
• Others described in the Gun Control Act

Under Section 922(g)(3) of the GCA, anyone who is an “unlawful user of” or “addicted to” a controlled substance is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

“Controlled substance,” as used in the GCA, has the same definition as the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which places all drugs into five schedules. Penalties for violating the GCA include up to 15 years in prison and disarmament for a lifetime.

Stand Up for Your Civil Rights

If your civil rights have been violated, use the Super Lawyers directory to find the best attorneys in your area to stand up for you and your rights.

Find a lawyer today

What Were the Facts of the United States v. Hemani Case?

Ali Danial Hemani is a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan, born in Texas. He spent most of his life living in the Dallas area, working a stable job.

Prompted by suspicions that Hemani and his family were involved in terrorism-related activities, authorities searched the family home. During the 2022 search, Hemani was cooperative, surrendering his gun, directing agents to marijuana, and admitting that he used marijuana about every other day.

In 2023, more than six months after the search, the federal government charged Hemani under the GCA’s prohibition of controlled substance users possessing a firearm. Hemani’s charge did not involve terrorism, cocaine, or trafficking. The government did not claim that Hemani had an addiction or was a danger to others. There were also no claims that Hemani misused the gun beyond storing it at his home.

Hemani contested the indictment, arguing that the government’s actions violated the Second Amendment. The district court granted the motion. After the government’s unsuccessful appeal to the Fifth Circuit, the government asked the Supreme Court to review the case.

The Court ultimately held that the government’s prosecution of Hemani violated the Second Amendment.

Hemani’s Arguments to the Court

Hemani’s lawyer urged the Court to find that the prosecution lacked any grounding in the nation’s historical tradition of firearms restrictions.

Hemani raised two constitutional arguments:

1. GCA is unconstitutionally vague because its plain text does not provide the degree of clarity required by criminal statutes
2. GCA violates the Second Amendment when applied to Hemani because, under the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment framework, there is no historical tradition of imposing substantial criminal penalties on alcohol or marijuana users.

The Government’s Arguments to the Court

The government urged the Court to uphold the section of GCA it charged Hemani under, as a valid exercise of Congress’s power to protect the public from illegal drug users who pose a risk of gun violence.

Other Parties with Stakes in the Outcome of the Hemani Case

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) also filed briefs in the case.

The NRA and allied groups focused on Second Amendment implications of the case. NORML and related advocacy groups highlighted the expanding social and legal acceptance of cannabis.

The Legal Framework Applied by the Court in Hemani

In Hemani, the Supreme Court applied its current Second Amendment framework as developed in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). Under Bruen, courts use a two-step analysis to determine whether the government infringed on Second Amendment rights:

1. Whether the Second Amendment addresses the conduct in question. If so, there’s a presumption that the Constitution protects that conduct.
2. The burden then shifts to the government to show that its regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

United States v. Rahimi (2024) refined the Bruen framework. It provides that the government is not required to identify a precise historical precursor. Instead, it must show that the modern regulation is “relevantly similar” to well-established historical laws and consistent with the principles underlying the nation’s regulatory tradition. The “why” and “how” become important considerations.

The Court’s Decision in Hemani

The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Hemani ruled that the government cannot make it a crime to own a gun simply because an individual uses marijuana.

The Court held that the government’s prosecution was inconsistent with the Second Amendment. It further found that the government failed on every metric it asked the Court to consider regarding an analogy to historical “habitual drunkard” laws.

While the Court recognized the danger in mixing drugs and firearms, and that there’s a legitimate state interest in keeping guns away from those who genuinely pose a risk, the decision offers a meaningful limiting principle for future cases.

Remaining Questions After the Court’s Hemani Ruling

Because the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hemani is deliberately narrow, many outstanding questions remain. A prosecutor may still bring charges for “unlawful user,” but it is unclear who exactly is covered.

Specifically, the Court’s ruling does not address:

• Efforts to ban addicts or those presently intoxicated from firearm possession
• Other prophylactic laws Congress may adopt after determining that users of a certain type of drug, such as methamphetamine or heroin, pose a special risk of misusing a firearm
• Section 922(g)(1)’s provision prohibiting individuals convicted of felonies from owning guns
• Whether the government could bring charges under § 922(g)(3) when it had individualized proof that the defendant’s drug use renders him a danger to himself or others
• Whether the government could bring charges under § 922(g)(3) when there is proof that a certain drug always renders its users dangerous or poses a public safety risk from firearm misuse.

There will likely be continued litigation on these matters. For example, the vagueness of “unlawful user” and the pressure it puts on prosecutors and lower courts are substantial. Prosecutors may need individualized proof of dangerousness to support charges. Or, Congress may decide to enact clarifying language or narrow the statute.

Get Legal Help

The Court’s ruling makes it clear that the government cannot automatically prohibit someone from owning a gun for life based solely on marijuana use. The decision represents a meaningful check on prosecutorial overreach, paired with real limits on the ruling’s reach.

While it settles one issue, others remain open in the debate over constitutional issues relating to gun rights, possession of firearms, and drugs. If you need help protecting your Second Amendment rights, consult an experienced civil rights attorney in your area who can help explain your legal options.