{"id":2574843,"date":"2026-03-01T06:21:02","date_gmt":"2026-03-01T11:21:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-to-weigh-scope-of-gun-rights-for-drug-users\/"},"modified":"2026-03-01T06:23:58","modified_gmt":"2026-03-01T11:23:58","slug":"supreme-court-to-weigh-scope-of-gun-rights-for-drug-users","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-to-weigh-scope-of-gun-rights-for-drug-users\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court to weigh scope of gun rights for drug users"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">22<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fsupreme-court-to-weigh-scope-of-gun-rights-for-drug-users%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2574843&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The Supreme Court is set to hear United States v. Hemani, the second <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/doj-urges-court-to-rule-against-cas-ammo-background-check\/\" title=\"... urges ... to rule against CA&#039;s ammo background check\">major gun-rights case<\/a> this term, to decide whether the federal ban on firearm possession for \u201can unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance\u201d can be applied to marijuana users without violating the Second Amendment. The Justice Department is asking the Court to overturn a lower court ruling that found the law unconstitutional, arguing there is a substantial ancient tradition of restricting gun rights for drug users and that the restriction is temporary and limited in scope, similar to alcohol-related prohibitions. The DOJ contends the standard is strict but historically grounded,and that the Fifth Circuit\u2019s narrower interpretation is incorrect.<\/p>\n<p>Hemani argues the law, as applied to someone who admits to regular marijuana use, infringes his Second Amendment rights. His brief asserts the \u201cunlawful user\u201d clause is vague and that restrictions should apply only while a person is presently intoxicated. The case has drawn unusual coalitions: anti-gun groups Brady and Giffords urge upholding the law, while gun-rights advocates like the NRA support Hemani\u2019s broader claim that restrictions should not apply to sober individuals who occasionally use substances. The outcome could influence how the Bruen-era standard shapes federal gun regulations, alongside another case, Wolford v. Lopez, with decisions expected by the end of June as the court weighs its gun-related docket.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<p><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><\/p>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-button\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-icon td-icon-mobile\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-header-search-button-mob dropdown-toggle\" data-toggle=\"dropdown\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-search-icon td-icon-search\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-button\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-icon td-icon-mobile\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<div class=\"tdb-drop-down-search\" aria-labelledby=\"td-header-search-button\">\n<div class=\"tdb-drop-down-search-inner\">\n<form method=\"get\" class=\"tdb-search-form\" action=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/\"><\/form>\n<div class=\"tdb-aj-search\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/#\" role=\"button\" aria-label=\"Search\" class=\"tdb-head-search-btn dropdown-toggle\" data-toggle=\"dropdown\"><i class=\"tdb-search-icon td-icon-search\"><\/i><\/a><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<h1 class=\"tdb-title-text\">Supreme Court to weigh scope of gun rights for drug users<\/h1>\n<div><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-title-line\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<div id=\"Brid_2482453\" class=\"tpd-featured-video bridtv\"><\/div>\n<p>The <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/supreme-court\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"203\">Supreme Court<\/a> will hear its <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4425712\/alito-accuses-hawaii-relegating-gun-rights-second-class-status\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4425712\/alito-accuses-hawaii-relegating-gun-rights-second-class-status\/\">second<\/a> of two significant <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/guns-and-firearms\/\">gun rights cases <\/a>this term on Monday when the justices grapple with gun rights for users of drugs, such as marijuana, in a case that has brought together unusual coalitions on both sides of the question.<\/p>\n<p>The appeal in <em>United States v. Hemani<\/em> was brought by the <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/justice-department\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"167\">Justice Department<\/a>. The case focuses on the constitutionality of a <a href=\"https:\/\/amzn.to\/3YuVZYV\" >federal statute barring firearm possession<\/a> for any person who &ldquo;is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.&rdquo; The DOJ has asked the high court to reverse an appeals court&rsquo;s finding that the law violated Ali Hemani&rsquo;s <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/second-amendment\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"1043\">Second Amendment right<\/a> to bear arms, and to toss out a single-count indictment on that charge.<\/p>\n<div class=\"recommended-stories\">\n<h2>Recommended Stories<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4474279\/left-wing-groups-plead-supreme-court-strike-trump-birthright-citizenship-order\/\">Left-wing groups plead with Supreme Court to strike Trump&#8217;s birthright citizenship order<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4472946\/doj-asks-justices-curb-lower-courts-disregard-supreme-court-orders-syria-tps-case\/\">DOJ asks justices to curb lower courts&#8217; &#8216;persistent disregard&#8217; for Supreme Court orders in Syrian TPS case<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4472621\/tariffs-ruling-trump-supreme-court-nomination\/\">How the tariffs ruling could complicate Trump&#8217;s next Supreme Court nomination<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"article-paywall\">\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-doj-wants-to-keep-current-gun-rights-restrictions-on-drug-users\">DOJ wants to keep current gun rights restrictions on drug users<\/h2>\n<p>The Justice Department under the <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/trump-administration\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"339\">Trump administration <\/a>has usually petitioned against gun control laws, but in the <em>Hemani<\/em> case, the DOJ has argued that a prohibition on guns for <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/drugs\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"555\">drug users<\/a> is one of the few restrictions permissible while upholding <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/constitution\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"424\">constitutional rights<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;Given the Second Amendment&rsquo;s central role in our constitutional scheme, the government bears a significant burden in justifying restrictions on that right. Specifically, the government must show that the challenged regulation &lsquo;is consistent with this Nation&rsquo;s historical tradition of firearm regulation.&rsquo; That is a stringent test, not a &lsquo;regulatory blank check,&#8217;&rdquo; the DOJ said in its brief. &ldquo;This case presents narrow circumstances where the government can satisfy that rigorous burden.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>The Justice Department argued there are clear historical roots for laws allowing restrictions on drug users possessing guns, noting that the law&rsquo;s restriction is &ldquo;temporary and limited: a person regains his ability to possess arms as soon as he stops habitually using drugs.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;All agree that there is a deeply rooted history and tradition of temporarily barring people from possessing firearms based on their use of alcohol. Further, all agree that this history and tradition would encompass the use of controlled substances such as marijuana,&rdquo; the DOJ argued in its brief.<\/p>\n<p>The DOJ also argued that the Fifth Circuit&rsquo;s ruling, which found that the government may only limit gun rights when it &ldquo;proves that a defendant was presently intoxicated while possessing a firearm,&rdquo; is an &ldquo;erroneous conclusion [that] ignores the vagrancy, civil-commitment, and surety laws that historically restricted the rights of habitual drunkards.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>The Trump Justice Department, in its efforts to uphold the law, has garnered support from some anti-gun groups, which are typically on the opposite side of DOJ&rsquo;s arguments in gun cases. The anti-gun groups Brady and Giffords filed a joint brief urging the high court to uphold the federal law.<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;Since the Founding, legislatures have exercised their power to protect against potential threats to public safety by restricting certain categories of people from accessing firearms. Courts have routinely upheld these categorical restrictions, recognizing that the individual right to bear arms is not absolute and that these reasonable public safety regulations are entirely consistent with this Nation&rsquo;s historical regulatory tradition,&rdquo; the brief said.<\/p>\n<p>The groups filed a brief against the DOJ&rsquo;s position in the other <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-will-hear-arguments-in-transgender-sports-cases-in-january\/\" title=\"... will ... in transgender sports ...s in January\">high-profile gun case<\/a> this term, <em>Wolford v. Lopez<\/em>, but in this case urged the justices to back the DOJ&rsquo;s position while also asking the high court not to &ldquo;call into question the centuries-old national practice of allowing legislatures to enact such prohibitions and regulators to rely on them to advance public safety.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>Under the Biden administration, the Justice Department successfully defended a federal law that banned guns for people under <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/breaking-senators-reach-gun-control-agreement-that-focuses-on-9-points\/\" title=\"BREAKING: Senators Reach Gun Control Agreement That Focuses On 9 Points\">domestic violence restraining orders<\/a>. The 8-1 majority in the 2024 case <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3054847\/supreme-court-gun-precedent-upheld-despite-thomas-dissent\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3054847\/supreme-court-gun-precedent-upheld-despite-thomas-dissent\/\">United States v. Rahimi<\/a> <\/em>ruled that the law satisfied the standard set with the 2022 ruling in <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/2882136\/supreme-court-rules-new-yorks-strict-concealed-carry-law-is-unconstitutional\/\">New York Rifle &amp; Pistol Association v. Bruen<\/a><\/em>, which found gun regulations must conform with the country&rsquo;s history and tradition of gun laws.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-hemani-centers-his-claims-around-second-amendment-rights-of-marijuana-users\">Hemani centers his claims around Second Amendment rights of marijuana users<\/h2>\n<p>Hemani&rsquo;s brief centers on how his admission that he uses <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/marijuana\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"115\">marijuana<\/a>, which is legal in some states, multiple times a week, led to his federal charge for unlawfully possessing a firearm, claiming it violates his Second Amendment rights.<\/p>\n<p>Hemani&rsquo;s family home was the subject of a search by the <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/fbi\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"516\">FBI<\/a> in August 2022, where they found his <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/firearms\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"194\">firearm<\/a>, along with roughly 60 grams of marijuana and 0.95 grams of <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/cocaine\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"2317\">cocaine<\/a>. He told FBI agents that he consumed marijuana &ldquo;about every other day.&rdquo; He was later charged under the federal law at the center of the case based on his mention of regular marijuana consumption, but both a federal district court and the Fifth Circuit appeals court tossed the indictment as violating the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n<p>In their brief to the Supreme Court, Hemani&rsquo;s lawyers center the case around the question of whether the federal law, as applied to marijuana users, violates the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;The only question before this Court is whether &sect;922(g)(3) is constitutional as applied to someone who admits to consuming marijuana a few times a week,&rdquo; the brief said. &ldquo;It is not.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>Hemani&rsquo;s brief argues that the law&rsquo;s &ldquo;unlawful user&rdquo; provision is too vague, but that even if that part of the law is not void for being too vague, the government may only restrict a person&rsquo;s gun rights while they are presently intoxicated. The brief claims that comparisons to historical laws barring gun possession by habitual drunkards &ldquo;did not cover anyone who consumed any quantity of alcohol &lsquo;habitually,&rsquo; but instead covered only those who habitually abused alcohol to the point of frequent intoxication.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;The federal government&rsquo;s draconian approach thus not only flouts historical tradition, but makes it an outlier today. As most states grappling with the dangers of mixing drugs and firearms have recognized, there are ways to address that serious problem consistent with the Constitution,&rdquo; the brief said.<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;But prohibiting anyone who regularly consumes any amount of marijuana of the right to keep a firearm in the home for self-defense is not one of them,&rdquo; the brief continued.<\/p>\n<p>Hemani&rsquo;s arguments have garnered support from pro-gun groups, which have filed briefs in support of the challenge to the federal law. The National Rifle Association&rsquo;s brief, filed with the FPC Action Foundation, argued that it is unlawful for the government to restrict a person&rsquo;s Second Amendment rights when they are not intoxicated, while conceding that, while intoxicated, they may be restricted.<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;To justify firearms prohibition for marijuana users when they are not intoxicated, the government must prove that the ban is consistent with our nation&rsquo;s historical tradition of firearm regulation. That tradition supports restrictions on the use of firearms while intoxicated, but it does not support disarming individuals when they are sober merely because they sometimes use intoxicants,&rdquo; the NRA&rsquo;s brief said.<\/p>\n<p><strong><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3858101\/supreme-court-could-load-up-on-gun-cases-this-term\/\" type=\"post\" id=\"3858101\">SUPREME COURT COULD LOAD UP ON GUN CASES THIS TERM<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court will hear arguments in <em>United States v. Hemani<\/em> at 10 a.m. Monday, with a decision in the case expected by the end of June, when the current Supreme Court term ends.<\/p>\n<p>By the end of June, the justices are also expected to issue a ruling in the other gun case, <em>Wolford v. Lopez<\/em>, regarding <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/hawaii\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"1259\">Hawaii&rsquo;s<\/a> &ldquo;vampire&rdquo; gun law. The high court is also weighing <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3858101\/supreme-court-could-load-up-on-gun-cases-this-term\/\">various petitions<\/a> for gun cases, which it could elect to hear in its next term that begins in October.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Paraphrase:<br \/>\nThe Supreme Court will hear the second major gun-rights case of the term, examining whether the federal ban on firearm possession for anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to controlled substances (including marijuana) is constitutional. United States v. Hemani, brought by the DOJ, asks the Court to overturn a lower court\u2019s ruling that the law violates the Second Amendment and to drop the indictment. The DOJ argues that, under the Bruen framework, the restriction can be justified in narrow circumstances because it aligns with historical traditions of firearm regulation, and that the prohibition is temporary and limited\u2014rights are restored once a person stops using drugs. The government notes a long-standing history of restricting firearms for habitual intoxication, including alcohol, and argues that this tradition extends to controlled substances. Unusually, anti-gun groups Brady and Giffords filed briefs urging the Court to uphold the law, while gun-rights groups like the NRA filed in support of Hemani, arguing that restrictions should apply only when someone is intoxicated. The Court will hear arguments at 10 a.m. and is expected to rule by late June; a related gun case, Wolford v. Lopez, also awaits a decision.<\/p>\n<p>Possible 55-character headline:<br \/>\nSCOTUS to weigh gun rights for drug users<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2638,"featured_media":2574844,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/AP24008832840681.jpg?w=696","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[33651],"tags":[71636,74814,15337,74815,70735],"class_list":["post-2574843","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-western-journal","tag-constitutional-law-2","tag-drug-users-2","tag-gun-rights","tag-second-amendment-2","tag-supreme-court-2"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/AP24008832840681.jpg?w=696","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2574843","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2638"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2574843"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2574843\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2574847,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2574843\/revisions\/2574847"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2574844"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2574843"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2574843"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2574843"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}