The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a challenge to a federal statute that bars firearm possession by drug users, affirming a lower court’s decision to dismiss an illegal gun-possession charge brought against Ali Hemani. In a 9-0 ruling, the justices left intact the appellate court’s determination that the Government could not sustain the charge under the provision of the Gun Control Act at issue.
Hemani, an American-Pakistani dual citizen who lives in Texas, was charged in 2023 after an FBI search of the Denton County home he shared with his parents uncovered a Glock 9mm pistol, marijuana and cocaine. Hemani told investigators he used marijuana about every other day. Authorities did not allege he was under the influence at the time of the search, and the indictment contained a single count under the Gun Control Act.
The federal statute at the center of the dispute dates to 1968 and makes it unlawful for anyone who "is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" to possess a firearm. That same statutory restriction factored into a 2024 conviction of Hunter Biden, who later received a pardon from his father, then-President Joe Biden. In Hemani’s case, prosecutors said in court papers that other factors had drawn FBI scrutiny, including Hemani’s travel to Iran and a relative’s attendance at an Iranian university, but the criminal case relied solely on the firearms-count tied to alleged drug use.
The legal classification of illegal drugs under the Controlled Substances Act plays an important role in how the Gun Control Act is applied. Drugs are categorized into schedules; marijuana long appeared on Schedule I alongside substances such as heroin and peyote, reflecting a legislative view at one time that it had a high potential for abuse and no medical value. The article’s record states that, after a presidential executive order concerning marijuana, the Justice Department in April loosened restrictions on some marijuana products and reclassified the drug as less dangerous.
In filings before the Supreme Court, Justice Department lawyers urged that Hemani’s marijuana be treated as a Schedule I substance because that was its categorization at the time of the alleged illegal firearm possession. The Government also proposed that the Court could recognize limited exceptions from the gun prohibition for marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration or for users protected by state medical marijuana programs.
Hemani sought to have the charge dismissed on Second Amendment grounds, invoking the test the Supreme Court articulated in a 2022 decision. Under that framework, a firearm regulation must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation to survive constitutional scrutiny. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2025 dismissed Hemani’s charge, concluding that the federal firearms ban could not be applied to individuals unless they were actually under the influence of illegal drugs while possessing a gun.
On appeal to the high court, the Justice Department, then under the Trump administration, urged adoption of a rule permitting illegal gun-possession charges against what it described as habitual users of unlawful drugs. The Government drew a parallel to 19th-century laws that allowed authorities to disarm so-called "habitual drunkards," asserting a historical analogue that could support contemporary restrictions. Hemani’s lawyers, with support from the American Civil Liberties Union, countered that routine marijuana users did not equate to the historical category of habitual intoxication referenced by those older statutes.
The decision comes amid ongoing national debate about how to address firearms violence, including frequent mass shootings, and at a time when the Supreme Court has in recent years issued rulings that significantly interpreted the reach of the Second Amendment. The court currently includes a 6-3 conservative majority. Separately, the justices in January heard arguments in another key Second Amendment case that challenges a Hawaii statute limiting the carrying of handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s consent; the court indicated skepticism among conservative justices toward that law and a decision in that matter is expected by the end of June.
This unanimous ruling preserves the appellate court’s narrower application of the Gun Control Act in Hemani’s case and leaves open questions about how the statute will be applied in other factual contexts, particularly where issues of drug scheduling, medical marijuana licensing and actual intoxication might be at play. The Justice Department’s suggestion of potential carve-outs for FDA-approved marijuana products or state medical marijuana programs signals an avenue the Government sees for limiting the statute’s reach even as it defends it.
Summary
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the dismissal of an illegal gun-possession charge against Ali Hemani, who acknowledged regular marijuana use. The ruling maintains the 5th Circuit’s approach that the Gun Control Act’s prohibition cannot be applied absent evidence of drug intoxication in possession cases. The Justice Department argued the marijuana should be treated as Schedule I as it was at the time of the offense but proposed potential exceptions for FDA-approved or state-authorized medical marijuana products.