scotusLeavesdooroPeNforfirearmPossessioNcHaLLeNGes criminal law section Co-Chairs: LilyMcCarty – Hines, McCarty & Pavlidis, PLLC & SamathaWard – Lorenzo & Lorenzo
thedecisionfurtherreinforcesthat categoricalfirearmprohibitions mustbesupportedbyhistoryand traditionratherthangeneralized publicsafetyconcernsalone.
In United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234, 605 U. S. ___( 2026), the Supreme Court held that the federal government’ s prosecution of Ali Danial Hemani under 18 U. S. C. § 922( g)( 3), which prohibits firearm possession by an“ unlawful user” of a controlled substance, violated the Second Amendment. In a unanimous decision, Justice Gorsuch, writing for the Court, concluded that the government failed to meet its burden under the historical and tradition based“ analogical” framework established by the Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’ n v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1( 2022).
The case started after federal agents executed a search of Hemani’ s residence during a
terrorism investigation. During the search, the agents located a Glock 19 and marijuana in the residence, with Hemani admitting that he regularly used marijuana. Hemani was not ultimately charged with any terrorism charges. The government, however, charged Hemani under § 922( g)( 3) based on his admitted regular marijuana use, six months after the execution of the search. Hemani moved for the district court to dismiss the indictment, based on the unconstitutionality of § 922( g)( 3), as applied to Hemani. The district court dismissed the indictment concluding that § 922( g)( 3) was unconstitutional as applied to Hemani, with the Fifth Circuit affirming the district court’ s dismissal. United States v. Hemani, 98 F. 4th 563( 5th Cir. 2025). The Supreme Court granted certiorari to assess whether § 922( g)( 3) was constitutional as applied to Hemani.
The Court, applying the historical and tradition based“ analogical” framework established in Bruen, rejected the government’ s argument that historical drunkard laws were historically analogous to the application of § 922( g)( 3) to Hemani and unlawful drug users without more. Hemani, 605 U. S. at ___( slip op. at 10 – 17). Justice Gorsuch, examining founding-era statutes, explained that these laws generally regulated dangerous conduct
continuedonpage25
2 4 s e P- O C T 2 0 2 6 | H C B A L A W Y e R