The United States Supreme Court added another significant Second Amendment dispute to its 2025-26 calendar. On October 20, 2025, the Court granted certiorari in United States v. Hemani, a case that could shape the legal landscape for millions of Americans who use marijuana and own firearms. The Court is expected to hear oral argument in early 2026 and to issue a decision by late June or early July.
The case centers on Ali Danial Hemani, a Texas man charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), a federal statute that prohibits firearm possession by anyone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” The dispute began after FBI agents executed a search warrant at Hemani’s home. During the search, agents discovered a Glock 9 mm pistol, approximately 60 grams of marijuana, and 4.7 grams of cocaine. Based on these findings, federal prosecutors indicted Hemani for violating § 922(g)(3).
Hemani filed a motion to dismiss the charge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, arguing that applying the statute to him violated his Second Amendment rights. U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant granted the motion, relying in part on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s 2023 decision in United States v. Daniels, 77 F.4th 337 (5th Cir. 2023), which vacated a conviction under the same statute where the jury had not found that the defendant was actively or recently using illegal drugs. Notably, the government did not oppose Hemani’s motion to dismiss at the district court level.
The government appealed, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal in January 2025. The Circuit Court concluded that § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional as applied to Hemani, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which held that modern firearm restrictions must be consistent with the historical understanding of the Second Amendment. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022); United States v. Hemani, No. 24-40137, 2025 WL 512973 (5th Cir. Jan. 31, 2025).
In June 2025, the Department of Justice filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. The petition was signed by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who acknowledged that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental right but argued that § 922(g)(3) falls within the “narrow circumstances” in which the government may impose temporary restrictions on firearm possession. Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 2, United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234 (U.S. filed June 14, 2025). Sauer argued that the statute targets only habitual drug users, that the restriction is temporary and may be lifted if the individual stops using unlawful substances, and that it is historically analogous to early American laws disarming habitual drunkards. He also emphasized that habitual drug users present particular risks, especially the danger of armed, impaired encounters with law enforcement.
Hemani opposed review, arguing that there is no conflict among the Courts of Appeal on this issue and that the government failed to fully develop its historical arguments in the lower courts. Nonetheless, after discussing the case at two consecutive conferences, the Justices granted certiorari and placed the case on the docket for the 2025–26 term.
The Court’s decision could have far-reaching consequences. If the Justices uphold the statute, federal authorities may continue to prohibit firearm possession by individuals who use illegal drugs, including those who use marijuana lawfully under state law. If the Supreme Court affirms the Fifth Circuit and strikes down the statute as unconstitutional in this context, it may open the door for millions of Americans to legally own firearms despite regular marijuana use.
This case arrives at a time when the legal and political landscapes surrounding cannabis and firearms are in flux. Nearly half of all U.S. states now permit recreational marijuana use, but marijuana remains a Schedule I substance under federal law. Thus, even those who use cannabis lawfully under state law are still considered “unlawful users” under federal statutes like § 922(g)(3).
The Supreme Court’s ruling will clarify how broadly Bruen applies to firearm regulations tied to drug use and will have far-reaching implications for millions of Americans who use marijuana legally under state law but are restricted under federal law. Should the Court uphold § 922(g)(3), Congress’s power to prohibit gun possession by unlawful drug users will be affirmed, even as state marijuana laws expand. Conversely, if the Court strikes down or limits the statute’s application, it will restrict federal firearms regulation over this category and potentially expand gun rights for state-legal marijuana users.
This legal uncertainty also creates significant practical challenges for both recreational and medical cannabis dispensaries, which are heavily regulated under state law but remain illegal under federal law. Because 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) prohibits firearm possession by anyone who uses a federally controlled substance, dispensary employees and even private security personnel, many of whom may be cannabis users themselves, are often barred from carrying firearms. As a result, dispensaries frequently operate as cash-heavy businesses without armed security, despite being prime targets for theft. The conflicting patchwork of state and federal law not only compromises employee and public safety but also hinders dispensaries from implementing standard security protocols that other high-risk industries take for granted. A ruling in Hemani could either entrench these restrictions or open the door to reconsidering how federal firearm prohibitions apply to the cannabis industry at large.
Accordingly, United States v. Hemani is poised to become a landmark decision at the intersection of Second Amendment rights, federal drug policy, and criminal law.