Supreme Court rules government can’t restrict gun rights for casual drug use
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday barred the government from restricting the gun rights of casual drug users in a case involving a Texas man who occasionally consumed marijuana.
On a 9-0 vote, the court concluded that the government’s invocation of the law fell afoul of the Constitution's Second Amendment when it was used against Ali Danial Hemani.
The law makes it a crime for any person who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess a firearm. It is the same statute that Hunter Biden, the son of former President Joe Biden, was convicted under in June 2024 before his father pardoned him. Those prosecuted under the law can face up to 15 years in prison and a permanent ban on owning firearms.
Federal prosecutors brought the charges against Hemani after the FBI found a handgun during a search of his home in 2022. The ruling authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch does not invalidate the law across the board, but it makes it harder for prosecutors to invoke it, especially as it relates to casual drug users.
Gorsuch wrote that the ruling is a “narrow one,” which does not address broader issues raised about banning drug addicts from possessing firearms.
The court rejected the federal government’s claim that anyone who uses marijuana is a danger to others, all based on the government’s own assessment, he added.
“We appreciate drugs and guns can sometimes make for a dangerous mix,” Gorsuch wrote.
But the government’s reliance on historical laws that disarmed “habitual drunkards” misses the mark, he added.
An added wrinkle in the case is that millions of Americans regularly use marijuana, which is legally available in many states even as it remains criminalized under federal law.
The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority often backs gun rights. In a major 2022 case that expanded the right to bear arms outside the home, the court set a new test for analyzing long-standing gun restrictions, setting off a wave of new litigation in lower courts.
“The court has sent a strong message that the government cannot criminalize the conduct of large numbers of people by making categorical and unfounded assumptions about whether they are dangerous,” Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Hemani, said in a statement.
In future cases, prosecutors would need to show more than just drug use alone and instead provide evidence that a defendant is a danger to the public as a result of consuming such illegal substances, said William Sack, a lawyer at the Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights group.
The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.
While gun rights advocates welcomed the ruling, those who support broad firearms restrictions stressed its narrow nature.
“Today’s opinion continues to allow the government to enact and enforce reasonable categorical prohibitions on firearms ownership,” Leigh Rome, a lawyer at the Giffords Law Center, said in a statement.
Hemani successfully challenged his indictment in both a Texas-based district court and in the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Prosecutors had suggested that Hemani, a dual citizen of the U.S. and Pakistan, had ties with Iranian groups hostile to the U.S., but he has faced no specific charges on that front.
FBI agents found a handgun, marijuana and cocaine when they searched his home.
The Trump administration defended the law in court, to the annoyance of gun rights advocates. Some are frustrated that the administration, which touts its support for the Second Amendment, has not always backed up that rhetoric in court.
In another gun case before the court, the justices are considering the lawfulness of a Hawaii law that prevents people from carrying firearms onto certain private properties without permission.
Add NBC News to Google
Lawrence HurleyLawrence Hurley is a senior Supreme Court reporter for NBC News.
Badenoch blasts 'moaning' female Labour MPs over Burnham jobs 'quota'
Kemi Badenoch has told Labour women to earn a job in Andy Burnham's Cabinet instead of demanding they are handed jobs because of their gender.
The Tory leader lashed out today amid reports that female MPs are demanding the de-facto new prime minister introduce a 50:50 gender split 'quota' in his government.
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister also complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts.
But in a scathing article in the Times today Mrs Badenoch told them to 'stop moaning' and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'.
'There are many, many reasons why you shouldn't have any Milibands in the cabinet,' she said.
'But complaining that the boys haven't given them the right jobs or that the boys are taking all the jobs, just shows that Labour's women still don't get it.'
The idea of quotas was also attacked by Baroness Jacqui Smith, Labour's Skills Minister.
Asked by Times Radio if Mr Burnham should reserve jobs for women, she said: 'No, I think what Andy Burnham should be doing is building the very best team around him to change this country.'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband (above, right, in 2010) is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts
But Mrs Badenoch told them to pipe down and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party and seen by the BBC has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs after he succeeds Sir Keir Starmer.
'We are asking you to demonstrate this change from day one and address the toxicity and misogyny within our own party and government,' it said.
Labour has never had a female leader, while the Conservatives have had three, and Mrs Badenoch urged the government to follow its meritocratic example.
'If you run a meritocracy, then you do not have to worry about jobs for the boys,' she wrote.
'Every woman who is a Conservative MP, every woman who has ever won the leadership, has had to fight to get where she is.
'By contrast, Labour women are demanding guarantees from Burnham. But the truth is he doesn't have to give any guarantees.
'If none of Labour's women are prepared to get their hands dirty and challenge him for the leadership, their demands are toothless.'
'In fact, it's quite revealing that the women's parliamentary Labour Party has written to Burnham asking him to commit himself to at least 50 per cent female ministers.
'This has nothing to do with meritocracy. It is yet more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country.'
