On June 18, 2026, as part of the final scheduled slate of opinions before its summer break, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a unanimous ruling on yet another Second Amendment case. It also served as a reminder that agreement on an opinion leaves plenty of room for different reasons why.
In United States v. Hemani, the Court upheld a ruling against the Department of Justice (DOJ) by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that held the government could not constitutionally prosecute a Texas man who admitted using marijuana for possessing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). Despite cannabis still being a controlled substance under federal law, the opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch applied New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (2022) to determine that the Second Amendment protects Ali Danial Hemani’s possession of firearms. Hemani was facing up to 10 years in a federal prison despite having no other charges besides unlawful possession of a firearm.
The battle over gun rights for cannabis users applied Bruen’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation” to determine whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) was a constitutional restriction on firearms. The government argued that founding-era laws regarding the possession of guns by “habitual drunkards” met the Bruen test, bringing about an unexpected examination of the drinking habits of early Americans. It also made for strange bedfellows, as groups that are often on opposite ends of the political spectrum came together over the melding of gun ownership rights and cannabis use in their amicus briefs, such as the Liberty Justice Center and the National Rifle Association (NRA). In the same vein, a concurrence shared by Justices Elena Kagan and Samuel Alito may have taken some by surprise.
Guns and Gummies. Pistols and Pot. Weapons and Weed.
Born in Texas, Hemani is a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan. In 2022, federal agents searched his family home as part of what authorities described as a terrorism-related investigation. After surrendering his firearm to authorities and admitting in an interview that he used marijuana “about every other day,” the matter seemed closed under the ruling made in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which holds that Second Amendment protections hold for all citizens, not just members of a militia.
It was likely a shock to Hemani when, six months later, he was arrested on a charge of knowingly possessing a gun in his home while being an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. He found himself facing the potential of more than a decade in a federal prison.
The DOJ went ahead with prosecution anyway, arguing that federal law from the Colonial Era that banned gun possession by “habitual drunkards” showed a historical tradition of this kind of firearm regulation. It lost at every level in the lower courts, including before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Making oral arguments before SCOTUS once again brought recent Second Amendment rulings to the forefront, highlighting the divides among the Justices regarding the major decisions that continue to shape the country’s firearms laws.
Beer and Guns Do Seem Pretty Historically American
In his opinion, Justice Gorsuch emphasized that limits on the right to keep and bear arms have historically focused on those who pose a threat to public safety. His refuting of the DOJ’s stance equating cannabis users with “habitual drunkards” included a who’s who of alcoholic drinkers among the Founding Fathers and other prominent Americans. While noting that cannabis is still illegal at the federal level (even under its new Schedule III designation), Gorsuch commented that the growing number of states that have legalized its use indicates that its acceptance by Americans may soon rival that of alcohol.
He also stressed that the government failed to show that Hemani’s marijuana use rendered him comparable to historically disarmed dangerous individuals, a focus on actual dangerousness that tracks the Court’s approach in United States v. Rahimi (2024). This was reinforced by the federal government failing to file any other criminal charges against Hemani.
Looking at Concurrences
While the decision was unanimous, the Justices' subsequent concurrences showed that there are different levels of agreement. Justice Clarence Thomas fully agreed with the majority, but wrote separately to go after one of his favorite targets, the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. He argued Congress’s ability to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause did not support 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and the court should revisit its precedent on the issue. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, once again voiced concerns about what the Court had created and continued to foster with its Bruen ruling, voicing the need to return to the previous “means-end” system to alleviate the issues that had cropped up as a result.
Finally, in perhaps the most unexpected meeting of the minds, Justice Kagan joined Justice Alito in a concurrence to note that they would have focused solely on the weakness of the government’s historical analogies, without some of Gorsuch’s broader discussion.
Given how narrowly the Court framed its holding, it’s likely that similar challenges to § 922(g)(3) and other status‑based gun bans will keep making their way back to the Court. Even so, who knows if we’ll ever see the Gun Owners of America and NORML on the same side of a cause again.
