by Fred Lucas
The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that a drug user could not lose his Second Amendment rights, in a case that put the ACLU and the National Rifle Association on the same side.
The court held that a federal law that automatically disarms someone who unlawfully uses a controlled substance is unconstitutional. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for the unanimous court.
In the opinion, Gorsuch explained that the government’s broad, automatic ban on firearm possession by unlawful users of controlled substances failed the Second Amendment test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The government pointed to historical “habitual drunkard” laws as analogues, but those measures targeted individuals so severely impaired that they were “incapable of conducting [their] own affairs” or had “lost the power of self-control.”
A regular or even frequent user of intoxicants did not qualify under the historical definitions. Gorsuch noted that even in an era of heavy drinking, many ordinary citizens — including some of the Founders — would not have been considered habitual drunkards.
In the case of U.S. v. Hemani, a federal grand jury indicted Ali Danial Hemani, a marijuana user from Texas, in February 2023 for violating a law prohibiting firearm possession by a user of illegal drugs or a controlled substance. He sued to dismiss the indictment.
The federal prohibition is part of the 1968 Gun Control Act.
The government argued the law doesn’t infringe on the Second Amendment in part because of longstanding “habitual drunkard” laws that have been around since the Colonial era.
Those laws impose certain restrictions on individuals with addiction that could pose a danger to themselves or others, argued Sarah Harris, the principal deputy solicitor general, in oral arguments March 2 in the case.
The Court found the government’s historical analogy unpersuasive on multiple grounds. Historical laws generally required some form of individualized judicial process such as a conviction, probate proceeding, or hearing before a justice of the peace, before imposing restrictions.
By contrast, the federal statute automatically disarms anyone who uses a controlled substance unlawfully, with no pre-deprivation process or showing of danger. The purposes also differed. Many historical restrictions focused on promoting productivity, protecting families from financial ruin, or curbing moral scandals rather than preventing firearm violence, the unanimous opinion says.
The indictment said Hemani knowingly used illegal drugs while possessing a Glock 19 9mm pistol. The prosecution didn’t allege Hemani was intoxicated or using drugs at the time he possessed the firearm. Rather, prosecutors based their case on him being a regular drug user.
“The Court’s decision is narrow,” Gorsuch emphasized. It does not address laws banning addicts or those presently intoxicated from possessing firearms, nor other prophylactic measures Congress might enact if it determines that users of a particular drug pose a special risk. The ruling also leaves untouched §922(g)(1)’s prohibition on felons and does not preclude prosecutions under §922(g)(3) supported by individualized evidence that a defendant’s drug use renders him dangerous to himself or others.
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurrence highlighting potential limits under the Commerce Clause. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, each wrote separately while concurring in the judgment.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted Hemani’s motion to dismiss the indictment, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal.
– – –
Fred Lucas is senior investigative reporter for the Daily Signal. He is the author of “The Myth of Voter Suppression: The Left’s Assault on Clean Elections.” Follow on X @FredLucasWH. Executive Editor of The Tennessee Star and The Star News Network Christina Botteri contributed to this report.
