Supreme Court sides with Texas man who challenged law barring drug users from having guns
Politics
Supreme Court sides with Texas man who challenged law barring drug users from having guns
By Melissa Quinn Senior Reporter, Politics Melissa Quinn is a senior reporter for CBSNews.com, where she covers U.S. politics, with a focus on the Supreme Court and federal courts. Read Full Bio Melissa QuinnUpdated on: June 18, 2026 / 12:35 PM EDT / CBS News
Add CBS News on GoogleWashington — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of a Texas man who challenged a federal law that bars certain drug users from having firearms.
In a unanimous decision in the case U.S. v. Hemani, the justices found that Ali Hemani's prosecution for having a firearm while he was an unlawful drug user is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Hemani allegedly was only an occasional user of marijuana when the FBI found a handgun at his Texas home in 2022.
The ruling from the Supreme Court is narrow, since the justices did not strike down the law at the center of the case in its entirety. Instead, the high court said the government cannot automatically disarm a person who uses marijuana a few times a week. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion for the court.
The government, he wrote, "asks us to conclude that anyone who regularly uses marijuana is categorically violent and dangerous without any further showing. All based on little more than its current say-so, one at odds with its own regulatory actions. And affording the government that kind of 'broad power to designate any group as dangerous and thereby disqualify its members from having a gun' would risk allowing it to 'quickly swallow' the Second Amendment."
The Supreme Court's decision does not address efforts to ban drug addicts or those presently intoxicated from having firearms, Gorsuch wrote. He also said it does not impact other federal firearms restrictions, including those that disarm convicted felons, or prosecutions that involve proof that a defendant's drug use renders him dangerous.
The law at issue in the case forbids an unlawful drug user from possessing firearms, and violators face up to 15 years in prison. The Justice Department estimates roughly 300 people are charged with the offense each year.
Perhaps the most high-profile person convicted under the law was Hunter Biden, former President Joe Biden's son, though he was pardoned by his father in December 2024.
The law at the center of the case was the latest to face Supreme Court scrutiny in the wake of its landmark 2022 decision that recognized the right to carry a firearm outside the home. In that decision, the high court laid out a new test for courts to apply when considering the constitution of a gun law. The framework requires the government to show that a restriction is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation.
In the wake of that ruling, the Supreme Court upheld in 2024 a federal law barring people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from having guns. The justices are also considering a challenge to a Hawaii law that prohibits people with concealed carry permits from bringing their guns onto private property open to the public without permission.
The government's case against Hemani focused solely on his marijuana use, which his lawyers said did not make him dangerous. Forty states have legalized marijuana use to some degree in recent years, adding a wrinkle to the legal battle. While cannabis remains illegal at the federal level, President Trump signed an executive order in December to reschedule marijuana to a lower drug classification. The Justice Department in April reclassified certain marijuana products as less-dangerous drugs.
Gorsuch, in the majority opinion, and Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Elena Kagan, both noted the shifts in marijuana policy at the federal and state levels, as well as the rise in marijuana consumption, and said those trends worked against the Justice Department in the case.
"Whatever one thinks of these developments, the federal government has not just tolerated them; it helped fuel them," Gorsuch wrote. "All of which leaves it awkwardly positioned to suggest that the millions of Americans who now regularly use marijuana are categorically and unusually dangerous. "
While the president has taken steps to bolster Second Amendment rights, the Trump administration also defended the ban on possession by drug users before the Supreme Court and urged it to uphold the restriction.
In filings with the high court, the Justice Department said the Second Amendment allows Congress to restrict gun possession by habitual drug users. Backing the Trump administration were gun violence prevention groups like the Brady Center for Prevent Gun Violence and Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
"Since our nation's founding, commonsense restrictions for owning firearms have been a part of our laws. Today's opinion continues to allow the government to enact and enforce reasonable categorical prohibitions on firearms ownership," Leigh Rome, senior litigation attorney at Giffords Law Center, said in a statement.
But on the other side, the American Civil Liberties Union signed on as co-counsel to represent Hemani. Also backing him were gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association.
The ACLU cheered the Supreme Court's decision rejecting Hemani's prosecution, saying it makes it clear that the government cannot make it a crime for people who use marijuana to own a gun.
"With nearly half of Americans reporting marijuana use at some point in their lives, this ruling protects the rights of millions and curbs the government's ability to impose arbitrary and discriminatory penalties," Cecillia Wang, the ACLU's legal director, said in a statement. "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."
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.'
Venezuela Fury and Noah Price subsidising their life by livestreaming
Venezuela Fury and her husband Noah Price look to be making their own way in the world by raking it in from their lucrative social media accounts.
The influencer daughter of Tyson and Paris Fury, 16, has become an internet sensation after tying the knot with her husband Noah, 19, earlier this year.
Since getting married and moving in together the couple have been earning thousands of pounds a month, livestreaming their life as newlyweds in their static caravan in the East Riding of Yorkshire.
And fans can't get enough of their regular life updates on TikTok and Kick, which have proved to be very profitable for the pair.
They look to be supporting themselves after Noah denied that he was given £5million by Venezuela's family as a wedding gift.
Despite his wife's huge family wealth, an estimated combined £160 million, Noah recently told his Kick followers that he 'pays for everything' for the couple.
Making light of the claims about Venezuela's millionaire financial status, Noah said: 'I actually pay for everything unfortunately. You'd expect the millionaire to pay for it wouldn't you.'
Venezuela Fury and Noah Price are earning thousands livestreaming their caravan life - after her new groom insisted he pays all the bills and denied he had £5m handout from her dad
The influencer daughter of Tyson and Paris Fury , 16, has become an internet sensation after tying the knot with her husband Noah, 19, earlier this year
Venezuela then asked their fans: 'Do you think I am a millionaire?'
Noah joked: 'She isn't a secret millionaire guys', before she broke into song and sang: 'But I live like a millionaire!'
But it seems according to estimated calculations from their social media work, Noah and Venezuela can more than afford to support themselves.
Noah has been livestreaming on platforms such as Kick and TikTok, where viewers can send paid gifts or donations.
He was previously encouraging viewers to send gifts on his honeymoon during livestreams, suggesting this is one revenue stream.
Both Noah and Venezuela have built substantial followings on Instagram and TikTok. They can potentially earn money through sponsored posts, brand collaborations, affiliate links and creator payouts.
Kick allows its creators to take home 95 per cent of the £4.99 subscription cost that fans pay.
Streamers keep 100 per cent of direct tips and donations, minus minor standard payment processing fees.
It is unclear how many subscribers Noah currently has because this information is hidden, but he does have 7,200 followers which is publicly viewable.
An industry insider has suggested Noah is making around £400 per video on TikTok, while Venezuela is likely to make £2,000 due to her following count of 1.3 million.
An industry insider has suggested Noah is making around £400 per video on TikTok, while Venezuela is likely to make £2,000 due to her following count of 1.3 million
In one video on their honeymoon, Noah asked his followers if they'd give them some more gifts now that they were married.
In a TikTok live viewed by 20,000 he said: 'Keep liking our videos people, keep sending gifts.'
After saying thank you to several of his followers he joked they should stick around on the livestream and 'watch Venezuela punch me in the mouth'.
The other half of the honeymooning couple said: 'I am, honestly!'
Noah previously confirmed that the pair don't share their finances after they were asked whether they have a shared bank account.
'She earns her money, I earn mine,' said Noah, as Venezuela joked: 'Yeah, what you gonna do about it.'
Noah went on to debunk the rumour that Tyson gave him £5million when he tied the knot with his daughter as he insisted: 'No Tyson did not give me £5million'.
Meanwhile Venezuela is being eyed up by executives for a fly on the wall TV series.
Noah went on to debunk the rumour that Tyson gave him £5million when he tied the knot with his daughter as he insisted: 'No Tyson did not give me £5million'
Boasting 1.3 million TikTok followers, Venezuela is already entertaining fans with her honest musings and candid moments, from cooking to kitting out her and Noah's static caravan home.
And following the success of the Netflix series At Home With The Furys, it is no wonder bosses are wanting to draw on the Fury popularity.
A TV insider said: 'The couple are not A-list celebrities but everyone has become obsessed with their love story.
'People are genuinely intrigued by them. Whether it’s the fact they have married so young, Venezuela’s famous family or their gypsy lifestyle, they have the ‘X factor'.
'Several TV executives think a proper fly-on-the-wall series following their lives as newlyweds in the gypsy community would be fascinating,' they told The Sun.
It is thought Netflix would be likely to produce the series due to their already established relationship with the Furys.
Venezuela's representatives told The Daily Mail: 'We have many offers on the table regarding Venezuela which we are discussing.'
