The Supreme Court on Thursday handed down a historic ruling striking down a federal law banning gun possession by those who use illegal drugs.
The lawsuit centered on a Texas man who was arrested after admitting to regularly using marijuana while being a gun owner. In a unanimous decision in United States v. Hemani the Supreme Court ruled that the law violates the Second Amendment and narrowed how the government can enforce the ban.
The case began back in 2022 when Ali Hemani, a U.S. and Pakistani citizen born in Texas, faced suspicions that he was involved in terrorism. Federal agents searched his family home but found no evidence of terrorist activity. Hemani cooperated fully during the raid and turned over a firearm he kept in the home. He pointed out some marijuana in the property and told agents he used it about every other day.
Federal prosecutors indicted Hemani over six months later on a single charge: knowingly possessing a firearm in his home while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance. He was not intoxicated at the time of the raid and there was no evidence he was addicted to marijuana.
A district court dismissed the indictment, arguing that it violated the Second Amendment. The Fifth Circuit upheld the ruling, prompting the Justice Department to ask the Supreme Court to review the case in June 2025.
During oral arguments, the government argued that the ban fits into the nation’s historical tradition of gun control laws, as required by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen v. New York Rifle & Pistol Association.
The state compared the ban to old “habitual drunkard” laws that disarmed people who consumed alcohol on a regular basis. They state pointed out that both rules target regular users of intoxicants for the same reason—to prevent dangerous people from carrying guns.
The Supreme Court ruled that a federal law barring unlawful drug users from possessing guns cannot be applied as broadly as the government argued under the Second Amendment.https://t.co/Ev0zvLzT5R
— KRCG 13 (@KRCG13) June 18, 2026
Hemani’s lawyers countered, arguing that the law went too far in how the state applied it to him. They noted that it summarily strips Second Amendment rights from marijuana users who are not addicts and have not shown themselves to be threats.
The Court ruled that the government’s indictment against Hemani was inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the opinion for the Court, noted that the government’s comparison to drunkard laws failed on each key point.
“The government’s prosecution of Mr. Hemani under §922(g)(3)’s unlawful user provision is inconsistent with the Second Amendment,” the opinion states. The Court pointed out that historical laws targeted those whose drinking left them “incapacitated” and unable to manage their own affairs, not anyone who simply used intoxicants.
The Court also noted that the old laws typically included a court process before seizing someone’s firearms. The current law immediately criminalizes people like Hemani.
The ruling does not apply to cases involving addicts or people who were intoxicated while carrying the firearm.
The decision will change how the federal gun ban is enforced going forward. The government can no longer automatically strip away Second Amendment rights from certain drug users who are not threatening others. With marijuana now being legal in many states, the law criminalizes those who own firearms for self-defense.
This was the right ruling and will go a long way toward protecting people’s right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment clearly says this right “shall not be infringed,” not “shall not be infringed unless the person smokes weed.”
The government should never target peaceful gun owners just because they consume a substance that some folks in D.C. say they shouldn’t. The state’s role should be to protect our rights, not dictate what we put in our bodies.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member