Biazzo Law Participates on the Winning Side in U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment Case: United States v. Hemani

At a time when constitutional rights are often tested by expanding federal power, the United States Supreme Court has issued an important new Second Amendment decision in United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234.

The Court held that the federal government’s prosecution of Ali Hemani under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)—the federal statute that prohibits firearm possession by an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance—was inconsistent with the Second Amendment as applied to him.

Biazzo Law participated on the winning side of this matter by filing an amicus curiae brief in support of Respondent Ali Danial Hemani.

You can read the official Supreme Court opinion here:United States v. Hemani, Supreme Court Opinion

You can read the amicus brief filed by Corey J. Biazzo here:Brief of Amicus Curiae Corey J. Biazzo in Support of Respondent

Need Supreme Court, constitutional litigation, appellate, or amicus brief counsel? Learn more about the Biazzo Law U.S. Supreme Court Practice.

What Was United States v. Hemani About?

The case involved the federal government’s attempt to prosecute a Texas man, Ali Hemani, for possessing a firearm in his home while allegedly being an unlawful user of marijuana.

The government did not claim that Mr. Hemani used the firearm violently. It did not claim that he possessed the firearm while intoxicated. It did not claim that his marijuana use made him dangerous to himself or others. Instead, the government argued that his status as a regular marijuana user was enough to trigger a federal firearms disability under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).

That statute makes it unlawful for any person who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess a firearm.

The Supreme Court rejected the government’s position.

The Supreme Court’s Holding

The Supreme Court held that the government’s prosecution of Mr. Hemani under § 922(g)(3)’s unlawful-user provision violated the Second Amendment as applied to him.

The majority opinion explained that the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Under the Court’s modern Second Amendment framework, once the Second Amendment covers the conduct at issue, the government bears the burden of showing that its firearms regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The government relied primarily on historical laws concerning “habitual drunkards.” But the Court concluded that those laws were not sufficiently analogous to § 922(g)(3) as the government sought to apply it.

The Court emphasized that historical “habitual drunkard” laws generally targeted individuals whose drinking rendered them incapacitated, unable to manage their affairs, or otherwise subject to individualized legal intervention. By contrast, the federal statute, as applied by the government, automatically disarmed a person based solely on regular controlled-substance use, without proof of dangerousness, intoxicated firearm possession, violence, incapacity, or misuse of a firearm.

In short, the Court rejected the idea that the government may automatically disarm a sober, nonviolent person merely because he uses marijuana.

Why This Case Matters for the Second Amendment

United States v. Hemani is an important Second Amendment decision because it reinforces a basic constitutional principle: the government may not eliminate a fundamental right through broad status-based classifications untethered from historical tradition.

The ruling does not mean that all firearm regulations are unconstitutional. It does not protect armed violence. It does not prevent the government from regulating people who are actually dangerous, intoxicated while armed, addicted, or otherwise proven to pose a special risk.

But it does limit the government’s ability to impose categorical firearms disabilities based merely on status.

That distinction is critical.

The Second Amendment protects an individual constitutional right. If the government wishes to restrict that right, it must do more than rely on broad labels. It must identify a historical tradition that supports the restriction and show that the modern law is similar in both purpose and operation.

How Biazzo Law Participated

Corey J. Biazzo filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Respondent Ali Danial Hemani.

The brief argued that the Second Amendment protects a broad individual right that cannot be made contingent on government-defined status. It also argued that historical firearm regulation focused on dangerous conduct—not peaceful status, personal habits, or substance use while sober.

The brief explained that founding-era and nineteenth-century laws regulated conduct such as armed intoxication, threats, violence, breaches of the peace, or individuals adjudged dangerous after process. Those laws did not create a general historical tradition of permanently disarming sober, peaceable citizens based solely on substance-use status.

The Supreme Court’s decision reached a result consistent with several themes advanced in the brief. The Court rejected the government’s historical analogues, emphasized the difference between ordinary substance use and incapacitating intoxication, and held that the government had failed to carry its burden under the Second Amendment.

Biazzo Law is honored to have participated on the winning side of this nationally significant constitutional case.

The Court Rejected Status-Based Disarmament Untethered to Dangerousness

One of the central issues in Hemani was whether the government could disarm a person based solely on a regulatory classification.

The government’s theory was broad. Under its approach, an individual could be stripped of Second Amendment rights because he regularly used any controlled substance, in any amount, regardless of whether he was dangerous, violent, impaired while armed, or misusing a firearm.

The Court rejected that sweeping theory.

That holding matters beyond marijuana cases. It confirms that the government cannot simply designate broad categories of people as dangerous and then eliminate their Second Amendment rights without a historically grounded justification.

This is especially important in an era of expanding administrative classifications, federal criminal statutes, and regulatory overlap between state and federal law.

For a broader discussion of the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms, read Biazzo Law’s guide:Understanding the Second Amendment: Your Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Marijuana, Federal Law, and Constitutional Rights

The case also highlights a growing conflict between federal controlled-substance classifications and state marijuana laws.

Many States have legalized or decriminalized marijuana in some form, while marijuana remains regulated under federal law. The government attempted to use that federal classification to impose a firearm disability.

Biazzo Law’s amicus brief warned that constitutional rights should not expand or contract based on federal classifications disconnected from historical tradition or individualized dangerousness.

The Supreme Court did not adopt every argument advanced by every party or amicus, but its opinion recognized the problem with allowing the government to use broad controlled-substance categories to disarm people without showing that those individuals are actually dangerous.

That principle is significant for constitutional law, federalism, and government accountability.

What the Decision Does Not Decide

The Court made clear that its decision was narrow.

The ruling does not address whether Congress may regulate firearm possession by drug addicts. It does not decide whether people who are presently intoxicated may be prohibited from possessing firearms. It does not invalidate felon-in-possession laws. It also does not decide whether the government could bring a different prosecution supported by individualized proof that a defendant’s drug use made him dangerous.

Instead, the decision addresses the government’s specific theory in this case: that it could automatically strip Mr. Hemani of his Second Amendment rights merely because he used marijuana a few times per week.

The Court held that theory unconstitutional.

Why Amicus Briefs Matter in Supreme Court Litigation

Amicus curiae briefs play an important role in Supreme Court cases. They allow lawyers, scholars, organizations, public-interest groups, businesses, veterans, constitutional advocates, and affected communities to bring additional legal, historical, practical, or institutional perspectives to the Court.

In constitutional cases, amicus briefs can be especially important because they may help explain how a ruling could affect civil liberties, federalism, separation of powers, regulated industries, criminal law, or the public.

Biazzo Law’s U.S. Supreme Court Practice includes:

• Supreme Court amicus curiae briefs

• Certiorari-stage strategy

• Constitutional litigation support

• Federal appellate briefing

• Merits-stage Supreme Court advocacy

• Emergency applications and injunction strategy

• Appellate preservation in trial courts

• Strategic legal analysis for individuals, businesses, nonprofits, and advocacy organizations

Learn more here:Biazzo Law U.S. Supreme Court Practice

Biazzo Law’s Government Oversight Program

United States v. Hemani also reflects a broader issue that Biazzo Law actively monitors: government power must remain within constitutional limits.

The federal government has substantial authority to enforce criminal laws, regulate controlled substances, and promote public safety. But those powers must be exercised consistent with the Constitution.

Through the Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program, Biazzo Law monitors and analyzes government actions that may implicate constitutional rights, federalism, civil liberties, administrative overreach, or separation of powers.

The program includes:

• Legal analysis of government action

• Constitutional oversight and public education

• Freedom of Information Act strategy

• Amicus curiae participation in cases of national importance

• Monitoring litigation involving civil liberties and structural constitutional limits

• Publishing legal commentary to inform citizens, organizations, and businesses

Government power is strongest when it is lawful, accountable, and constitutionally limited.

Related Second Amendment Advocacy

Biazzo Law continues to monitor and participate in constitutional litigation involving the Second Amendment, firearms regulation, and government overreach.

Readers interested in current Second Amendment litigation may also review Biazzo Law’s discussion of the Virginia firearms case challenging the 2026 assault firearms and magazine ban:Virginia Second Amendment Lawsuit Challenges 2026 Assault Firearms and Magazine Ban

That case, like Hemani, raises important questions about how modern firearms regulations must be tested against the Constitution’s text, history, and tradition.

Key Takeaway

The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Hemani is an important victory for the Second Amendment and for constitutional limits on government power.

The Court rejected the government’s attempt to automatically disarm a sober, nonviolent marijuana user without proof of dangerousness, intoxicated firearm possession, violence, or firearm misuse.

Biazzo Law participated on the winning side by filing an amicus brief supporting Respondent Ali Danial Hemani. The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that constitutional rights cannot be reduced to privileges dependent on broad government classifications.

The Constitution remains the highest law of the land. When the government seeks to restrict fundamental rights, it must satisfy the Constitution—not merely invoke public policy, administrative categories, or broad assertions of danger.

Frequently Asked Questions About United States v. Hemani

What did the Supreme Court decide in United States v. Hemani?

The Supreme Court held that the government’s prosecution of Ali Hemani under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), based solely on his status as a marijuana user, was inconsistent with the Second Amendment as applied to him.

Does United States v. Hemani mean all drug users can possess firearms?

No. The Court described its decision as narrow. It did not decide questions involving addicts, people presently intoxicated while possessing firearms, felons, or cases involving individualized proof that a person’s drug use makes him dangerous.

Did the Supreme Court strike down all of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)?

The Court held that the government’s prosecution under § 922(g)(3)’s unlawful-user provision was unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Hemani. It did not resolve every possible application of the statute.

Why did the government lose?

The government failed to identify a historical tradition supporting automatic disarmament of a person based solely on regular controlled-substance use. The historical analogues the government cited involved different people, different purposes, and different procedures.

How did Biazzo Law participate?

Corey J. Biazzo filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Respondent Ali Danial Hemani, who prevailed before the Supreme Court.

Where can I read Biazzo Law’s amicus brief?

You can read the brief here:Brief of Amicus Curiae Corey J. Biazzo in Support of Respondent

Where can I read the Supreme Court’s opinion?

You can read the official opinion here:United States v. Hemani, Supreme Court Opinion

Contact Biazzo Law

Biazzo Law handles constitutional litigation, federal appeals, U.S. Supreme Court amicus briefs, appellate strategy, and government oversight matters.

To learn more, visit:

Biazzo Law U.S. Supreme Court Practice

Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program

Or contact Biazzo Law directly:

Call/Text: (703) 297-5777Email: corey@biazzolaw.com

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship.