Supreme Court Makes Major 9-0 Ruling on Second Amendment and Drug Offenders

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that a drug user could not lose his Second Amendment rights, in a case that put the ACLU and the National Rifle Association on the same side.

The court held that a federal law that automatically disarms someone who unlawfully uses a controlled substance is unconstitutional. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for the unanimous court.

In the case of U.S. v. Hemani, a federal grand jury indicted Ali Danial Hemani, a marijuana user from Texas, in February 2023 for violating a law prohibiting firearm possession by a user of illegal drugs or a controlled substance. He sued to dismiss the indictment. 

The federal prohibition is part of the 1968 Gun Control Act. 

The government argued the law doesn’t infringe on the Second Amendment in part because of longstanding “habitual drunkard” laws that have been around since the Colonial era.

Those laws impose certain restrictions on individuals with addiction that could pose a danger to themselves or others, argued Sarah Harris, the principal deputy solicitor general, in oral arguments March 2 in the case.

The indictment said Hemani knowingly used illegal drugs while possessing a Glock 19 9mm pistol. The prosecution didn’t allege Hemani was intoxicated or using drugs at the time he possessed the firearm. Rather, prosecutors based their case on him being a regular drug user. 

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted Hemani’s motion to dismiss the indictment, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal.

In his opinion, Gorsuch wrote the government sought to “automatically strip Mr. Hemani of his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm” based only on “showing he regularly uses any amount of any controlled substance.” 

He dismissed the government’s justification based on early American drunkard laws. 

“But the government’s analogy fails under every measure it asks us to consider: The historical laws on which it relies targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways,” Gorsuch wrote.  “And faced with all these shortcomings in the government’s submission, we cannot say it has carried its conceded burden of showing its prosecution of Mr. Hemani complies with the Second Amendment.”

But the opinion added that “the court’s decision is narrow,” noting it “does not address efforts to ban addicts or those presently intoxicated from possessing a firearm; other prophylactic laws Congress might adopt after determining that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing firearms,” or “provision disarming individuals convicted of felonies.”

Fred Lucas is senior investigative reporter for the Daily Signal. He is the author of “The Myth of Voter Suppression: The Left’s Assault on Clean Elections.”

Reprinted with Permission from The Daily Signal – By Fred Lucas

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AMAC or AMAC Action.