Argued: Does the Federal Drug-User Gun Ban Survive the Second Amendment?

On March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Hemani, with Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris arguing for the government and Erin E. Murphy presenting the respondent’s position. The argument marks the Court’s most direct engagement yet with whether Congress may categorically disarm a class of people defined by drug use rather than by criminal conviction or adjudicated dangerousness.

Ali Danial Hemani was charged under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) after being found in possession of a firearm while an unlawful drug user. The Fifth Circuit held the statute unconstitutional as applied. The government sought certiorari, and the Court granted review. The case drew 23 amicus briefs, with organizations ranging from the Cato Institute to NORML and the NRA participating. See the full docket at the Supreme Court’s website.

The central legal question is whether the founding era recognized a tradition of disarming persons based on intoxication or substance use. The government argues historical analogues support the restriction; Hemani contends no sufficiently comparable tradition exists. The breadth of the statute compounds the difficulty: it covers anyone who is a current unlawful user, without requiring any nexus between drug use and a specific act of violence.

The decision will affect the constitutional floor for all status-based firearm prohibitions. If the Court upholds 922(g)(3), it will signal that the Second Amendment’s historical test accommodates some categorical disarmament rules. A contrary ruling could invite challenges to other subsections of 922(g). Observers should watch whether the Court issues a narrow as-applied ruling or articulates a broader framework for evaluating non-conviction-based disarmament statutes.