How the U.S. Supreme Court May Rule in United States v. Hemani: Second Amendment Analysis Under Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi

By Corey J. Biazzo | Biazzo Law, PLLC

The United States Supreme Court’s 2025–2026 Term includes a case that may significantly shape the future of Second Amendment jurisprudence: United States v. Hemani (No. 24-1234).

At issue is whether the federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)—which prohibits firearm possession by anyone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance”—violates the Second Amendment when applied to individuals who are not intoxicated and have not engaged in dangerous conduct.

The case arises against a rapidly evolving constitutional landscape. Since 2008, the Supreme Court has fundamentally reshaped the law governing firearm regulation through a series of landmark decisions:

• District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

• McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

• New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022)

• United States v. Rahimi (2024)

Together, these cases established a powerful doctrinal framework requiring courts to evaluate firearm restrictions through text, history, and tradition rather than balancing tests.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Hemani could determine:

• Whether Congress may categorically disarm individuals based on drug use

• Whether firearm disabilities must be tied to dangerous conduct

• How the Bruen historical-tradition test applies to modern federal statutes

This article analyzes the likely outcome based on Supreme Court precedent, the parties’ briefs, the oral arguments, and the amicus briefs filed in the case—including the amicus brief submitted by Biazzo Law.

What Is United States v. Hemani About?

The Supreme Court granted review to determine whether §922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment as applied to Ali Danial Hemani, who possessed a firearm while allegedly being an unlawful user of marijuana.

Federal agents discovered a Glock handgun and controlled substances during a search of Hemani’s home. He admitted to using marijuana regularly, and prosecutors charged him under the federal statute prohibiting gun possession by drug users.

However, both the district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the law was unconstitutional as applied to him under the Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment framework.

The federal government then petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse that ruling.

At its core, the case asks a fundamental constitutional question:

May the government permanently disarm a sober, non-violent citizen solely because he occasionally uses marijuana?

The answer may reshape federal gun law nationwide.

The Federal Gun Law at the Center of the Case

The statute at issue, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), was enacted as part of federal firearms legislation expanding the categories of individuals prohibited from possessing guns.

Under the law, individuals are barred from possessing firearms if they are:

“an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

The statute applies even if:

• the person is not intoxicated

• the firearm is possessed lawfully

• there is no evidence of dangerous conduct

This creates tension in modern America because marijuana is legal in many states but remains illegal under federal law.

As a result, millions of Americans who legally consume marijuana under state law may technically be prohibited from owning firearms under federal law.

Why the Case Matters for Millions of Americans

The intersection of marijuana legalization and gun rights has become a rapidly growing legal conflict.

More than half of U.S. states now permit marijuana use in some form, yet the federal government continues to classify marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance.

Because of this federal classification, individuals who lawfully consume marijuana under state law may still be considered “unlawful users” under federal firearms statutes.

Legal scholars estimate that the case could affect millions of Americans, particularly as marijuana legalization continues to expand across the country.

The Supreme Court’s ruling may determine whether federal firearm prohibitions can rely on status-based categories rather than dangerous conduct.

The Supreme Court’s Modern Second Amendment Framework

To understand how the Court may rule in Hemani, it is essential to understand the Court’s modern Second Amendment jurisprudence.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

In Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home.

This decision rejected the argument that the Second Amendment protects only militia-related rights and instead recognized a personal constitutional liberty.

However, the Court also noted that the right is not unlimited, suggesting that certain longstanding firearm regulations remain permissible.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Two years later, the Court held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

This decision confirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental constitutional right, binding both federal and state governments.

NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022)

In Bruen, the Supreme Court dramatically changed how courts analyze firearm regulations.

Before Bruen, courts often used “means-end scrutiny”, weighing public safety interests against constitutional rights.

The Court rejected that approach and adopted a new test.

Under Bruen:

1. Courts must determine whether the Second Amendment’s text covers the conduct at issue.

2. If so, the government must prove the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

This text-and-history test now governs nearly all Second Amendment litigation.

United States v. Rahimi (2024)

In Rahimi, the Court upheld a federal statute disarming individuals subject to domestic-violence restraining orders.

The Court reasoned that the Second Amendment permits temporary disarmament of individuals who pose a credible threat of violence.

However, the decision emphasized that such restrictions must resemble historical regulations targeting dangerous conduct, such as surety laws.

This distinction—between dangerous behavior and status-based disarmament—is central to the Hemani case.

The Government’s Argument

The federal government argues that §922(g)(3) is consistent with historical firearm regulation.

According to the government:

• Habitual drug users pose a heightened risk of firearm misuse.

• Historical laws restricted the rights of individuals considered dangerous, including habitual drunkards.

• The statute imposes only a temporary restriction, because individuals can regain firearm rights by ceasing illegal drug use.

The government therefore argues that disarming drug users falls within a historical tradition of disarming individuals whose behavior indicates potential danger.

The Respondent’s Argument

Hemani’s legal team advances two principal arguments.

1. The Statute Violates the Second Amendment

The defense argues that the law fails the Bruen historical-tradition test.

According to the defense:

• Historical laws regulated armed intoxication, not firearm possession by sober individuals.

• Founding-era laws targeted dangerous conduct, not personal habits or lifestyle choices.

• No historical analogue exists for a categorical ban based on drug use alone.

2. The Statute Is Unconstitutionally Vague

The defense also argues that the term “unlawful user” is unclear.

Courts have struggled to define:

• how recently drugs must have been used

• how frequently use must occur

• whether occasional use qualifies

Because criminal laws must provide clear notice, the defense argues the statute may violate constitutional due process principles.

The Biazzo Law Amicus Curiae Brief

Among the amicus briefs filed in the case is one submitted by Corey J. Biazzo of Biazzo Law.

The brief argues that §922(g)(3) is inconsistent with the historical understanding of the Second Amendment.

👉 Read the Biazzo Law amicus brief:https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1234/392679/20260124122800364_Brief_of_Amicus_Curiae_Corey_Biazzo.pdf

The brief emphasizes several key points.

1. The Second Amendment Protects Individuals, Not Status Categories

Founding-era firearm regulations addressed conduct demonstrating danger.

They did not disarm individuals merely because of:

• lifestyle choices

• personal habits

• social classifications

The Biazzo brief argues that modern laws cannot invent new status-based prohibitions that lack historical precedent.

2. Historical Tradition Regulated Conduct, Not Personal Habits

Historical laws punished:

• carrying weapons while intoxicated

• threatening others with firearms

• breaches of the peace

But they did not disarm sober citizens based on substance use alone.

This difference between conduct-based regulation and status-based disarmament is central to the case.

3. Federal Drug Classifications Cannot Define Constitutional Rights

The brief also raises concerns about federalism.

Because marijuana legality varies across states, allowing federal drug classifications to determine Second Amendment rights risks making a constitutional right geographically inconsistent.

In other words:

A constitutional right should not expand or contract depending on federal drug schedules.

What the Justices’ Questions Suggest

Supreme Court oral arguments often reveal how the Justices view a case.

Reports from the argument indicate that several Justices focused on how broadly the statute operates.

Some Justices questioned whether occasional marijuana use should permanently disqualify a person from firearm ownership.

Others asked whether the government’s analogy to historical laws regulating drunkards truly matches the modern statute.

These questions suggest the Court may be skeptical of overbroad firearm prohibitions untethered from historical practice.

Possible Outcomes in the Case

Based on precedent and oral argument dynamics, several outcomes are possible.

1. The Court Affirms the Fifth Circuit

The Court could hold that §922(g)(3) is unconstitutional as applied to nonviolent marijuana users who are not intoxicated while possessing firearms.

This outcome would reinforce the Bruen test and require firearm restrictions to be tied to dangerous conduct.

2. The Court Narrows the Statute

The Court could interpret the law to apply only where:

• the person is actively intoxicated while possessing a firearm, or

• the government proves dangerous drug abuse

This approach would preserve part of the statute while preventing overbroad disarmament.

3. The Court Upholds the Law

Less likely—but still possible—the Court could rule that drug users may be disarmed because they resemble historical categories of individuals considered dangerous.

However, such a ruling may be difficult to reconcile with the strict historical analysis required by Bruen.

What the Decision Could Mean for Gun Law Nationwide

The Supreme Court’s ruling could have sweeping implications.

Potential consequences include:

• reshaping federal firearm disability statutes

• clarifying the scope of the Bruen historical-tradition test

• affecting prosecutions under §922(g)(3) nationwide

The decision may also influence challenges to other firearm restrictions involving status-based prohibitions.

Why Experienced Supreme Court Counsel Matters

Cases before the United States Supreme Court require specialized expertise.

At Biazzo Law, we provide strategic representation in complex constitutional litigation and Supreme Court matters.

Learn more about our practice here:

👉 https://www.biazzolaw.com/biazzolawscotuspractice

Our work focuses on:

• constitutional litigation

• Supreme Court advocacy

• appellate strategy

• amicus brief preparation

Conclusion

United States v. Hemani may become one of the most important Second Amendment decisions since Bruen.

The case asks whether the government may disarm citizens based solely on status, or whether firearm restrictions must be tied to historically recognized dangerous conduct.

If the Court faithfully applies the principles established in Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi, the decision may reaffirm a central constitutional rule:

The Second Amendment allows regulation of dangerous behavior—but not categorical disarmament untethered from historical tradition.

A ruling is expected by summer 2026, and its impact could shape American gun law for decades.