Court to hear argument on whether and when drug users may possess firearms

SCOTUSblog

by Amy Howe

February 26, 2026

AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in *United States v. Hemani*, a case that centers on whether individuals who are habitual drug users can legally possess firearms under federal law. The case arises from the FBI’s discovery of a firearm and illegal drugs at the home of Ali Danial Hemani, who admitted to using marijuana regularly. Based on this evidence, Hemani was charged with violating a federal statute that prohibits unlawful drug users from possessing firearms. Hemani argued that the law unconstitutionalally infringes upon his Second Amendment right to bear arms. In response, the Trump administration has maintained that federal law should bar gun possession not only when someone is actively under the influence of drugs but also if they are habitual drug users. This stance contrasts with a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which ruled that the law cannot be applied to individuals who may use drugs habitually but were not impaired while in possession of a firearm. The government, however, contends that historical precedents from early American law support its position, including laws targeting “habitual drunkards” and barring them from possessing firearms. The case hinges on whether the federal statute aligns with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment following *New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen*. Under this precedent, gun restrictions must be justified by a historical tradition. The government argues that such a tradition exists in barring habitual drug users from possessing firearms, as early laws treated them similarly to “habitual drunkards,” imposing harsher penalties than those for occasional substance use. Hemani’s legal team counters that the statute is unconstitutionally broad when applied to individuals who are

Verticals

legalpolitics

Originally published on SCOTUSblog on 2/26/2026