U. S. v. Hemani
The Supreme Court has said it would hear United States v. Hemani. The case aims to get to the bottom of whether federal statute 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment. That statute currently prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who ‘is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.’
The FBI had been monitoring Ali Hermani (a dual citizen of both the U.S. and Pakistan) for suspected terrorist ties. He was found in possession of a 9mm handgun alongside small amounts of marijuana and cocaine during a search of his home. He was not under the influence of any drugs at the time of the search but he confessed to law enforcement that he was a daily marijuana user.
Hemani was charged by a grand jury with possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance. The district court granted Hemani’s motion to dismiss the indictment, and the government appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
The Fifth Circuit had previously ruled in United States v. Connelly that § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional when the government did not prove the defendant was intoxicated at the time of possessing the firearm, even if the defendant was a regular drug user. The Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in Connelly, and similar cases, questioned the constitutionality of categorical bans on gun possession by drug users without proof of actual dangerousness at the time of possession.
Hemani’s case was factually similar: the government did not allege he was under the influence at the time of firearm possession.
Hermani’s attorneys argued that the federal statute in question is constitutionally vague and does not hold up under the 2022 Bruen decision.
Attorneys for the DOJ argued that colonial-era laws against “common drunkards” armed with weapons, as well as more than 100 years of restrictions on firearms possession by drug addicts, meet the Bruen requirement for “history and tradition.”
The Fifth Circuit Court dismissed the charge. The ruling only applies to the 5th Circuit.
There is now a circuit split: the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have found § 922(g)(3) unconstitutional in certain as-applied cases while the Seventh Circuit has upheld it.
The Department of Justice appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) which has agreed to take up the case.
Since Bruen(2022) SCOTUS has heard four Second Amendment-related cases.
-
In Garland v. Cargill (2024) the court found that a bump stock does not convert guns into machine guns under federal gun laws.
-
InUnited States v. Rahimi (2024) the court found that a person can be temporarily disarmed if a court deems that the individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of another person.
-
In Bondi v. Vanderstok (2025) the court found that the ATF has the authority under the Gun Control Act of 1968 to regulate unfinished frames and parts kits.
