The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case challenging the federal government’s policy that effectively denies cannabis consumers their constitutional right to bear arms. Arguments in the case are expected to be heard in early 2026, according to a report from the Associated Press, with a decision anticipated next summer.
The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would take up U.S. v. Hemani, a case against a cannabis consumer and cocaine user prosecuted under Section 922(g)(3) of the U.S. Code. The legislation bars those who use or are addicted to “unlawful drugs” from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition. Lawyers for the defendant argue that the federal law violates the Constitution’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, a Trump administration political appointee, argued in a legal filing in the case that the federal government’s policy “targets a category of persons who pose a clear danger of misusing firearms: habitual users of unlawful drugs,” Marijuana Moment reported on Monday.
The law “bars their possession of firearms only temporarily and leaves it within their power to lift the restriction at any time; anyone who stops habitually using illegal drugs can resume possessing firearms,” Sauer said.
Case Involves Defendant Indicted in 2023
The defendant in the case, Ali Danial Hemani, is a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan, according to a report from CNN. He was indicted in 2023 after the FBI discovered a 9mm pistol, 60 grams of cannabis, and 4.7 grams of cocaine at his family home. Prosecutors say the case hinges on Hemani’s alleged habitual use of cannabis.
A federal district court dismissed the charge, citing a 2022 Supreme Court decision that allowed individuals more leeway to carry guns in public. The decision also set a new standard for Second Amendment cases that required laws restricting gun rights to be connected to historical prohibitions on firearms ownership and possession.
The Trump administration appealed the district court’s decision in Hemani, arguing that the law against gun ownership by drug users is consistent with the Constitution. The government has also made several additional allegations against the defendant in the case, claiming a 2019 search of his phone at the U.S. border revealed that he was willing to commit fraud at the direction of affiliates of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. The government also alleges that Hemani traveled to Iran to celebrate the life of Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian military officer killed by a U.S. drone strike in 2020.
“Habitual illegal drug users with firearms present unique dangers to society – especially because they pose a grave risk of armed, hostile encounters with police officers while impaired,” the Department of Justice told the Supreme Court in a legal filing in the case.
Hemani’s lawyer has argued that historical support for the gun ban is “tenuous at best.” He also noted that nearly half of U.S. states have legalized recreational cannabis for adults.
“While the number of Americans who use marijuana legally under state law and possess a firearm is unknown, there is certainly a significant overlap between the two,” the attorney argued.
Case Could Set Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court on Monday also declined to hear U.S. v. Cooper, another case involving a cannabis user prosecuted for possessing a firearm. Two additional similar cases, U.S. v. Daniels and U.S. v. Sam, were left pending. All four cases were scheduled to be discussed during a closed meeting of the justices last week.
A potential Supreme Court decision to uphold Section 922(g)(3) could set a precedent for other cases prosecuted under the statute. Lower courts have made conflicting rulings in similar cases, with some courts upholding the firearms ban for drug users and others deciding it is a violation of the constitutional right to bear arms.
Catch up on the latest cannabis news and sign up for NuggMD's Weekly Sesh newsletter for the latest consumer tips, industry updates, and product recommendations.
The information in this article and any included images or charts are for educational purposes only. This information is neither a substitute for, nor does it replace, professional legal advice or medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. If you have any concerns or questions about laws, regulations, or your health, you should always consult with an attorney, physician or other licensed professional.
