United States v. Hemani, Docket No. 24-1234

Listen to the episode On Spotify on Apple Podcasts or on YouTube

In a stunning unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government went too far when it prosecuted a Texas man solely for owning a gun while using marijuana regularly. The case, United States v. Hemani, decided June 18, 2026, shows that even in our deeply divided country, nine justices agreed that the government cannot strip away constitutional rights without a much stronger justification than it offered here.

What Happened to Ali Hemani

Ali Hemani is a Texas native and dual U.S. and Pakistani citizen. In 2022, federal agents searched his family home based on terrorism suspicions. Hemani cooperated fully, handing over a firearm and admitting he used marijuana roughly every other day. He was not charged with terrorism, drug dealing, or any act of violence. Instead, the government charged him with the crime of possessing a gun while being a regular marijuana user. He faced up to 15 years in prison and a lifetime ban on owning firearms.

The trial court disagreed with the prosecution and threw out the charges. An appeals court agreed. The Supreme Court has unanimously sided with Hemani.

The Government's Argument

The government tried to justify the law by pointing to old American laws that restricted gun ownership for chronic drunkards. These included vagrancy laws and laws allowing courts to commit heavy drinkers to institutions. The government's logic was straightforward: if America has a long history of disarming people who regularly use intoxicants, then disarming regular marijuana users fits that tradition.

But the government made a critical claim that troubled the justices. It said it did not need to prove that Hemani's marijuana use actually made him dangerous or impaired his judgment. Simply using a controlled substance regularly was enough to strip him of his gun rights.

Why the Court Said No

Justice Gorsuch, writing for eight justices, explained that the government's historical examples simply did not match Hemani's situation. A founding era habitual drunkard was someone so consumed by alcohol that they could barely function. Hemani, by contrast, lived a normal life while using marijuana regularly. That gap was too wide to bridge.

The old laws also worked differently. They required some kind of process before stripping rights away, such as a court hearing or a conviction. The law used against Hemani stripped rights automatically, with no hearing and no individualized finding that he was actually dangerous. The old laws also served different purposes, like promoting productivity or preventing public scandal, not preventing violence.

The Court also noted the practicality that the federal government itself had largely stopped enforcing marijuana laws, most states had legalized marijuana in some form, and the government had reclassified certain marijuana products. Using a law based on outdated drug policy to take away constitutional rights did not make sense.

The Court was careful to keep its ruling narrow. It did not say the government can never restrict gun ownership based on drug use. Congress could still write a law that requires proof of actual dangerousness, or that more closely matches historical restrictions on people who were genuinely unable to function.

Why Every Justice Agreed

What makes this case remarkable is that no justice dissented. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, who typically support gun restrictions, joined the main opinion. Justices Alito and Kagan, who often disagree, joined together on a narrower reasoning. This unusual lineup shows that prosecuting a cooperative man for having a gun in his home, based solely on marijuana use with no claim he was dangerous, struck every single justice as unconstitutional.

Justice Thomas raised a separate concern about whether Congress even has the power to make this a federal crime in the first place. Justice Jackson criticized the historical test the Court uses in gun cases, suggesting a better approach would weigh the government's reasons against how much the law burdens gun rights. But these disagreements were about how to explain the ruling, not about the result itself.

Prinicpled Constitutional Rights

This decision does not strike down the entire law. It simply says the government cannot use it the way it did against Hemani. Congress still has room to write firearm restrictions connected to drug use, as long as those restrictions are grounded in closer historical comparisons or include some individualized finding that a person is actually dangerous.

The ruling reflects a basic principle. A unanimous Court agreed the government cannot take away your constitutional rights based on a sweeping theory that requires no proof you actually pose a danger. In Hemani's case, that principle won the day.