Supreme Court Blocks Prosecution of Texas Man Under Drug User Gun Ban

Why it matters locally: This Supreme Court decision could have a significant impact on how cases involving drug users and firearm possession are prosecuted in Colorado, especially given the state's legalization of recreational marijuana. The ruling may lead to challenges against current state and federal statutes applied within Colorado that automatically prohibit gun ownership based solely on marijuana use, without proof of incapacity or dangerousness.

---

The Supreme Court sided with a Texas man challenging a federal law that bars drug users from possessing firearms, ruling that prosecutors cannot charge him under the statute as applied to his case. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion that the government sought to "automatically strip Mr. Hemani of his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm" and "imprison him for up to 15 years" based only on evidence that he regularly used controlled substances. Gorsuch found this approach unconstitutional. FBI agents searched Ali Danial Hemani's home in 2022 and discovered a Glock 19 pistol, 60 grams of marijuana, and 4.7 grams of cocaine. Hemani admitted he used marijuana approximately every other day. Federal prosecutors indicted him for violating 18 U.S.C. Section 922, which makes it a crime for "an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" to possess a gun. The violation carries a felony charge punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Hemani asked the federal trial judge to dismiss the charges, arguing the law violated his Second Amendment rights. U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant agreed, and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision. The federal government then appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the lower courts' rulings Thursday. Gorsuch grounded the decision in the court's 2022 precedent in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that gun restrictions must align with historical traditions in early America. The government argued that early American laws targeting "habitual drunkards" provided historical justification for drug user restrictions. Gorsuch rejected this analogy. A "habitual drunkard" in early America required frequent incapacity to the point of being "practically incapacitated and incapable of managing their affairs," Gorsuch wrote. The current law, by contrast, requires no showing that a drug user is incapacitated. Under the government's theory, Gorsuch noted, prosecutors could charge "a husband who regularly takes his wife's prescription Ambien to sleep" or "a college student who routinely uses a friend's Adderall to cram for exams." The historical laws also operated differently, Gorsuch emphasized. Those statutes "usually provided some form of process" such as trials or probate proceedings "before an individual lost any of his liberties." The current law, by contrast, "automatically divests an individual of his constitutional right to bear arms the moment he becomes an unlawful user." Gorsuch also noted internal contradictions in the government's position. The federal government recently downgraded marijuana's classification on its list of controlled substances to indicate a "lower potential for dependence and abuse" and recognized its "currently accepted medical use." Gorsuch questioned how the government could simultaneously treat all marijuana users as categorically violent and dangerous. Gorsuch stressed the ruling's limits. The court did not address whether the government could prosecute people addicted to drugs, restrict gun possession by felons, or prosecute someone if evidence showed their specific drug use rendered them dangerous to themselves or others. All justices agreed Hemani's conviction was improper, but several filed separate opinions. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that Congress lacks constitutional power to regulate gun possession solely because firearms crossed state lines. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued the Bruen framework is "unworkable" and "vulnerable to inconsistent and arbitrary application." Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, agreed with the outcome but disagreed with the reasoning, focusing on whether marijuana users face incapacity similar to historical habitual drunkards.