The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear United States v. Hemani in October 2025 marks a pivotal moment for Second Amendment rights and federal drug policy. This case challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), a federal law prohibiting individuals who are “unlawful users of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing firearms. With a growing circuit split among federal courts and increasing state-level legalization of marijuana, the Hemani case could reshape the intersection of gun rights and cannabis use. Here’s what’s at stake, why it matters, and what to expect.
Background: The Legal Conflict Over § 922(g)(3)
The federal law, part of the 1968 Gun Control Act, bars anyone who is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance, such as marijuana, cocaine, or prescription drugs used illicitly, from owning or purchasing firearms. This restriction applies regardless of state laws, creating tension as 38 states have legalized cannabis for medical or recreational use. Despite state-level reforms, marijuana remains a Schedule I drug under federal law, meaning users face federal restrictions on their Second Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court’s 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision set a new standard for evaluating gun laws, requiring them to align with the “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” This ruling has fueled challenges to § 922(g)(3), with courts nationwide issuing conflicting interpretations:
-
Fifth Circuit (United States v. Connelly, United States v. Hemani): In Connelly (August 2024) and Hemani (January 2025), the court ruled that the government must prove a defendant was intoxicated at the time of firearm possession for § 922(g)(3) to apply constitutionally. Past drug use alone doesn’t justify disarmament.
-
Eighth Circuit (United States v. Cooper): In February 2025, the court held that the government must show a defendant’s drug use makes them a “credible threat” to others, akin to mental illness or inducing terror.
-
Third Circuit (United States v. Harris): In July 2025, the court upheld § 922(g)(3) for those whose frequent drug use poses a “special danger” of firearm misuse, remanding for individualized assessments.
-
Sixth Circuit (United States v. VanOchten): In August 2025, the court allowed § 922(g)(3) for “dangerous” drug users but required an opportunity for defendants to prove they are not a risk.
-
Tenth Circuit (United States v. Harrison): Also in August 2025, the court found historical support for disarming those posing future risks, remanding to assess if non-intoxicated marijuana users are dangerous.
-
Seventh Circuit (United States v. Seiwert): In September 2025, the court likened persistent drug impairment to severe mental illness, justifying disarmament.
-
Eleventh Circuit (Florida Commissioner of Agriculture v. Attorney General): The court ruled that medical cannabis users aren’t automatically comparable to felons or dangerous individuals, remanding for further review.
This “circuit split” has created a patchwork of legal standards, where a cannabis user’s gun rights depend on their geographic location. The Supreme Court’s review of Hemani aims to resolve these inconsistencies.
The Hemani Case: Key Arguments
In United States v. Hemani, the defendant, a joint American-Pakistani citizen with alleged ties to Iranian entities, was indicted under § 922(g)(3) for possessing firearms while using marijuana, cocaine, and abusing prescription drugs. The Fifth Circuit dismissed the indictment, citing its Connelly ruling that historical tradition doesn’t support disarming sober individuals based on past drug use.
The Government’s Position
The Justice Department, led by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argues that § 922(g)(3) is constitutional because:
-
Historical Precedent: Founding-era laws disarmed “drunkards” and others deemed dangerous, like Catholics and loyalists, suggesting a tradition of restricting arms for those with impaired judgment.
-
Public Safety: Habitual drug users, including marijuana consumers, pose a “clear danger” of firearm misuse due to cognitive and behavioral effects, potential criminal activity to fund drug use, and ties to violent drug culture.
-
Temporary Restriction: The law uses the present-tense “is,” meaning the ban only applies while someone is an active user. Ceasing drug use restores gun rights.
-
Relief Mechanism: 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) offers a process for restoring gun rights, addressing concerns about overreach.
Hemani’s Defense
Hemani counters that:
-
Lack of Historical Analogy: The government failed to identify Founding-era laws disarming groups comparable to marijuana users, per Bruen’s standard.
-
Overbroad Interpretation: The term “habitual drug use” isn’t in § 922(g)(3), and the law’s vague language risks punishing past or minimal use.
-
Insufficient Relief: The § 925(c) restoration process is irrelevant to the law’s constitutionality as applied to him.
Why Hemani Matters
The Hemani case could have far-reaching implications for gun rights, cannabis policy, and federal-state relations:
-
Clarifying Second Amendment Standards: The Supreme Court may refine Bruen’s “history and tradition” test, especially after United States v. Rahimi (2024), which upheld temporary disarmament for those posing a clear threat of violence. The Court could clarify whether drug use alone constitutes such a threat.
-
Impact on Cannabis Users: A ruling could determine whether millions of state-legal marijuana users—medical and recreational—can legally possess firearms. This is critical as states like Kentucky prepare to launch medical cannabis programs, with federal warnings from the ATF highlighting the ban.
-
Federal vs. State Tensions: A decision could address the conflict between federal drug laws and state cannabis legalization, potentially influencing other areas like banking or employment for cannabis users.
-
Circuit Split Resolution: A uniform standard would end the current geographic disparity in gun rights for drug users, ensuring consistent application of § 922(g)(3).
Broader Context: Marijuana and Gun Rights
The Hemani case isn’t isolated. Other pending cases, like United States v. Daniels and United States v. Sam, raise similar questions, though the Court declined to hear United States v. Cooper and United States v. Baxter. Recent lower court rulings, such as those in Rhode Island and El Paso, have found § 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to specific defendants, citing insufficient historical precedent for broad disarmament.
Public sentiment is also shifting. Republican senators have argued that if alcohol users can own guns, cannabis users should have similar rights. State efforts, like a Pennsylvania bill to protect medical cannabis patients’ gun rights and a failed Colorado ballot initiative, reflect growing pushback against federal restrictions.
What to Expect
The Supreme Court’s oral arguments, expected later in the 2025-2026 term, will likely focus on:
-
Whether historical laws disarming drunkards or other groups are valid analogies for modern drug users.
-
The threshold for “dangerousness” under § 922(g)(3)—must the government prove active intoxication, frequent use, or a broader risk?
-
The role of § 925(c) in mitigating constitutional concerns.
A ruling is expected by mid-2026. If the Court upholds § 922(g)(3), it could affirm the government’s ability to restrict gun ownership for drug users, potentially affecting other cases. If it strikes down or narrows the law, it could expand Second Amendment protections for cannabis users, prompting legislative or regulatory changes.