United States, Petitioner v. Ali Danial Hemani

The Supreme Court said the federal law in 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3) could not be applied to Ali Danial Hemani, who admitted regularly using marijuana and kept a gun in his home. The justices said the government had not shown a historical tradition for disarming someone like him based only on regular drug use.

The Court said §922(g)(3) violated the Second Amendment as applied to Hemani, but the prompt does not provide the vote count or opinion lineup.

Majority

Gorsuch

Roberts

Thomas

Alito

Kagan

Sotomayor

Kavanaugh

Barrett

Jackson

The decision limits how the federal government can use this gun ban in cases built only on regular drug use. For example, a person accused under §922(g)(3) may now argue the law cannot be used against them without proof of intoxication, dangerousness, or a similar legal process.

Lower courts must apply this ruling in similar Second Amendment challenges to §922(g)(3). Federal prosecutors and agencies enforcing gun laws will need to review pending cases and decide whether their evidence goes beyond regular drug use alone.

The case asked whether the federal gun ban for unlawful drug users could be applied to Hemani without violating the Second Amendment.

People charged under §922(g)(3) may cite this case when the government relies only on regular drug use, not intoxication or proven danger.

Lower courts must follow this ruling in similar cases. Prosecutors must review pending cases and decide whether their evidence shows more than regular drug use.