United States v. Hemani Re. Certiorari Granted October 20, 2025
On October 20, 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in United States v. Hemani. The case questions the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that makes it a felony for anyone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess, ship, or transport a firearm. Interestingly, this is the very same law that Hunter Biden was convicted under in June of 2024 in Delaware. Biden was found guilty of three counts arising from his 2018 purchase of a revolver, during which he allegedly lied on the ATF Form 4473 by denying unlawful drug use. The prosecution argued that, at the time, he was using and addicted to crack cocaine, violating §922(g)(3). While Biden raised a Second Amendment defense, the district court rejected his facial challenge to the statute, citing an existing Eighth Circuit precedent upholding the statute to be a relevant historical analogue to firearms restrictions.
In contrast, in Ali Danial Hemani’s case, federal agents executing a search warrant in his home in Texas discovered a Glock 9mm pistol, along with 60 grams of marijuana and 4.7 grams of cocaine. Hemani was indicted under §922(g)(3) but moved to dismiss, claiming that the statute infringed his Second Amendment rights under the test articulated in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which requires modern firearm restrictions to “comport with history and tradition.” U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant agreed, citing the Fifth Circuit’s 2023 decision in United States v. Daniels, which struck down §922(g)(3) as applied to a habitual marijuana user where the jury had not found active or recent drug use. The Fifth Circuit affirmed Mazzant’s dismissal in early 2025.
In his petition to the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General, Dean John Sauer, defended §922(g)(3) as a narrow, historically-grounded limitation on firearm possession. Sauer argued that the statute targets only habitual users, which is a temporary restriction, and which could be lifted if the individual ceases drug use, and mirrors early. The government also argued that the statue mirrors early American laws disarming “habitual drunkards,” and also emphasized public safety concerns, noting that individuals under the influence of controlled substances pose heightened risks in armed encounters.
Hemani arrives following United States v. Rahimi (2024), where the Court upheld a prohibition on gun possession by those subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, reaffirming that the Bruen precedent does not completely eliminate all modern firearm regulation. Hemani extends this question by asking if status-based restrictions on drug users, including those legally using marijuana under state law, are constitutional.
Nearly half of U.S. states now allow recreational marijuana use, yet federal law still classifies it as a Schedule I substance—that is, a drug with a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use, including heroin, LSD, and psilocybin. A ruling in favor of Hemani could expand gun rights for millions of lawful state-level cannabis users, while a ruling in favor of the government would reinforce the federal government’s authority to disarm federally unlawful drug users, as well as maintain the current tension between federal-state cannabis legalization discrepancy and federal firearms law.
The oral arguments for the case have not yet been scheduled, but are expected to be heard in early 2026. However the Court resolves Hemani, its reasoning will determine not just the firearms rights of drug users, but whether “history and tradition” can appropriately fit to the realities of modern firearm regulation.