Supreme Court limits federal government's ability to confiscate weapons from drug users
The case examined the constitutionality of the charges brought against Ali Danial Hemani under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)—a provision incorporated into the Firearms Control Act of 1968—which prohibits the possession of firearms by anyone who is an “illegal user” or addicted to controlled substances.
File photo of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.
The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) unanimously ruled that the application of a federal law prohibiting firearm possession by drug users violated the Second Amendment in the case of Ali Danial Hemani, a U.S. and Pakistani citizen residing in Texas. The decision was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch and was supported by all nine justices of the court.
The case examined the constitutionality of the charges brought against Hemani under Section 922(g)(3) of the Code, a provision incorporated into the Firearms Control Act of 1968, which prohibits the possession of firearms by individuals who are “illegal users” or those addicted to controlled substances.
According to the facts presented by the court, federal agents searched Hemani’s family home in Texas in 2022. During the operation, they found a 9-millimeter Glock pistol and marijuana. Hemani admitted to authorities that he used marijuana “approximately every two days.” More than six months later, he was charged with possession of a firearm while using a controlled substance.
In its decision, SCOTUS held that the government failed to demonstrate that the charge against Hemani was consistent with the Second Amendment. Gorsuch wrote that the Executive Branch had not “carried its conceded burden of showing its prosecution of Mr. Hemani complies with the Second Amendment.”
The opinion emphasizes that the court does not dispute that, under certain circumstances, the illegal use of marijuana or other substances can make a person a danger to others. However, it adds that in this case, the government did not attempt to demonstrate any such circumstances.
“We do not question that sometimes an individual’s unlawful use of marijuana (or any other controlled substance) may render him a danger to others,” the court noted. But, it continued, the government sought to have the Court conclude that anyone who regularly uses marijuana is “categorically violent and dangerous without any further showing.”
The government’s argument
“We do not address efforts to ban addicts, or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm,” wrote Gorsuch.
During the litigation, the Trump administration defended the validity of the federal law, arguing that the combination of drugs and firearms poses a risk to public safety. However, the court upheld the previous rulings by the federal courts in Texas and the Fifth Circuit, which had dismissed the charges against Hemani.
LATEST
