Why the Supreme Court’s Gun Rights Case Could Change Who Can Own Firearms Nationwide

Last updated 2 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

In March 2026, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that could reshape who can legally own guns in America. The case involves a Texas man, a handful of drugs found during an FBI search, and a federal law that has existed largely unchallenged for nearly 60 years. The central question is: Can the government permanently ban someone from owning firearms because they use drugs—even if they’re not intoxicated when they possess a gun?

The case is called United States v. Hemani. Three years ago, in 2022, the Court ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that gun laws must be consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. That decision opened the door for legal challenges the Court had previously rejected. Hemani’s case tests whether that reasoning applies to drug users—potentially affecting millions of Americans.

Federal Drug User Gun Ban

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), nine categories of people are banned from possessing firearms: convicted felons, people under domestic violence restraining orders, and people adjudicated as mentally ill, among others.

One category creates an enormous conflict between state and federal law: “unlawful users of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

Marijuana is legal in 24 states plus Washington, D.C. for recreational use, and 40 states permit it for medical purposes. But marijuana remains illegal under federal law—it’s classified as a Schedule I controlled substance. This creates a legal impossible situation for millions of Americans.

Consider this scenario: You live in Colorado, where recreational marijuana is legal. You have a medical marijuana card or you buy it at a licensed dispensary. You want to buy a gun and go to a licensed firearms dealer to fill out the federal Form 4473. Question 21.e asks: “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressants, stimulants, narcotics or any other controlled substance?”

You face an impossible choice. If you answer “yes,” the dealer must refuse the sale. If you answer “no,” you’re committing federal perjury. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has stated that “any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her state has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance and is prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.”

About 15% of American adults currently use marijuana, and approximately 47% have tried it at some point in their lives. Tens of millions of people technically fall into this prohibited category.

The Hemani Case

Ali Danial Hemani is the defendant in this case. In February 2023, FBI agents executed a search warrant at Hemani’s home in Texas. They discovered a loaded Glock 9 mm pistol, approximately 60 grams of marijuana, and 4.7 grams of cocaine. Hemani was indicted for violating § 922(g)(3)—possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance.

Hemani’s defense lawyers raised a constitutional argument that had been gaining traction in lower courts. They argued that the prohibition violated the Second Amendment, applying the new legal test the Supreme Court announced in the Bruen decision. A federal judge in Texas agreed. U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant granted Hemani’s motion to dismiss the charges.

The government appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees cases from Texas and neighboring states. The Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal, citing its prior decision in United States v. Connelly. The court held that the prohibition couldn’t apply to someone unless the government proved they were actively intoxicated or impaired at the time they possessed the gun. Since prosecutors hadn’t established that Hemani was under the influence when he had the firearm, the Fifth Circuit said the statute couldn’t be applied to him.

Some Second Amendment advocates were uncomfortable that the Trump administration’s Justice Department selected this particular defendant—one allegedly associated with illegal drugs and, according to court documents, with ties to Iranian entities—to be the test case for challenging drug-user gun restrictions.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in October 2025. The Court set oral arguments for March 2, 2026.

How the Supreme Court Changed Gun Law

For most of American history, the Court barely touched the Second Amendment.

In 2008, the Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Court emphasized this was not an unlimited right—longstanding prohibitions on firearm possession by felons and the mentally ill remained valid. Two years later, McDonald v. City of Chicago extended that right to apply against state and local governments.

These early decisions left a major question unanswered: If people have a constitutional right to bear arms, what gun regulations can the government impose?

That changed in 2022 with Bruen. The Court struck down New York’s requirement that people show “proper cause”—a special need for self-protection—before getting a license to carry a gun in public. The Court announced a new test: When evaluating whether a gun regulation violates the Second Amendment, courts must ask whether the regulation is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The government must demonstrate that a challenged regulation is analogous to restrictions that existed in early American history—particularly around 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified, or 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment applied it to states. Courts must consider both how and why a regulation burdens a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense when determining how analogous it is to historical regulations.

Lower courts applying this test have started striking down or narrowing gun prohibitions that had existed for decades. In 2024, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Rahimi, a case involving a man subject to a domestic violence restraining order. The Court upheld that prohibition—finding historical precedent in founding-era laws that disarmed people considered dangerous—but emphasized that the historical tradition test remained the governing standard.

The Fifth Circuit applied the Bruen history-and-tradition test to § 922(g)(3) and asked: In founding-era America, did legislatures disarm people based on their status as past or present drug users? The court concluded they found no evidence of such a practice. Historical records show laws restricting people who were actively intoxicated, but not blanket prohibitions on everyone who had ever used drugs.

Arguments in the Case

The Government’s Position

The federal government argues that § 922(g)(3) is constitutional because it has a strong historical pedigree and serves an important public safety purpose. The Justice Department points to founding-era laws that restricted gun rights for “drunkards”—people who habitually abused alcohol. The government contends that habitual drug users present a similar danger as habitual drunkards did historically.

The government emphasizes that the restriction is temporary. Since the statute uses the present-tense phrase “is an unlawful user,” the ban lasts only as long as the drug use continues. Someone can restore their gun rights by ceasing their drug use. The government points to a federal restoration process (18 U.S.C. § 925(c)) that allows prohibited people to petition the Attorney General for relief.

The government argues that the Fifth Circuit’s test—requiring proof of intoxication at the exact moment of gun possession—is unworkable and conflicts with how other courts have evaluated similar prohibitions. Other circuit courts have taken different approaches, some allowing the government to prove someone was a “habitual” drug user without proving they were intoxicated at that specific moment.

Hemani’s Position

Hemani’s lawyers argue that the prohibition cannot be applied to him or any sober person based on past or present drug use. They contend that history and tradition do not support disarming someone who is not currently intoxicated or impaired. While acknowledging that historical sources show restrictions on carrying weapons while actively drunk, they found no historical analogues for a categorical ban on everyone who uses drugs—particularly not those who are sober at the time of gun possession.

Hemani’s side emphasizes that the statute is unnecessarily broad. The law sweeps in people who might use marijuana occasionally for pain relief, medical patients, or people whose drug use was years in the past. The law doesn’t require a judicial determination that any particular person is dangerous—it assumes all unlawful drug users are dangerous enough to disarm permanently.

Hemani argues that the government’s citation to founding-era laws about “drunkards” is misapplied. Those historical restrictions typically operated on the premise that someone was actively impaired and posed an immediate risk. They didn’t assume someone who had ever consumed alcohol was forever disqualified from gun ownership. Similarly, drug users shouldn’t be categorically disqualified based on their status.

Why Different Courts Disagree

Different federal appeals courts have reached different conclusions about § 922(g)(3), creating conflicting legal standards across the country. The Fifth Circuit, covering Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, has been most aggressive in striking down applications of the statute. In 2024, that circuit concluded that the government must prove a defendant was “intoxicated at the time” of possessing a firearm.

The Third Circuit has said courts must make “individualized judgments” about whether a specific person poses a danger, but it hasn’t ruled the statute facially unconstitutional. The Sixth Circuit has upheld the statute, saying it can apply to drug users consistently with the Second Amendment because it “reflects a congressional attempt to ‘keep guns out of the hands of presumptively risky people.'” The Eighth Circuit has created yet another test.

A person charged with the exact same conduct can face different legal outcomes depending on which federal court has jurisdiction. Someone in Texas might succeed in challenging the statute under Fifth Circuit law, while someone in a different state faces conviction under a different circuit’s interpretation.

The Supreme Court typically gets involved to resolve these conflicting decisions.

Possible Outcomes

If the Court sides with Hemani: The statute could be struck down entirely, at least as applied to someone not proven to be impaired at the time of gun possession. More drastically, the Court could rule the entire prohibition facially unconstitutional. If that happens, millions of people currently prohibited from gun ownership would become eligible. Federal prosecutors would stop charging people under § 922(g)(3) in cases involving drug use alone. Gun dealers would remove the marijuana question from background check forms, or the form would specify only active intoxication matters.

If the Court upholds the statute: The status quo continues. The government can prohibit gun possession by anyone classified as an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” without needing to prove intoxication at the moment of possession. This would vindicate the government’s position and potentially validate similar applications by other courts.

A narrower ruling: The Court might rule that the prohibition can apply to people who are currently active, regular drug users, but not to people whose drug use was distant in the past or occasional. Or the Court might require that prosecutors prove something more than mere use—perhaps a demonstrated pattern of dangerous behavior connected to that use. This seems like the most likely outcome based on the current composition of the Court and how Bruen and Rahimi were decided.

The Court will issue its decision by the end of June 2026.

Who Is Affected

Medical marijuana patients: Someone with a valid state-issued medical marijuana card for legitimate health reasons faces a choice between gun ownership and legal medical treatment. States have issued roughly 3.5-4 million medical marijuana cards nationwide. If the Court strikes down the statute, many of these people could become eligible to own guns. If the Court upholds it, they remain locked out.

Recreational users in legal states: Approximately 15% of American adults use marijuana. Many aren’t breaking any state law—they’re using a substance their state permits. Yet they’re prohibited from buying guns under federal law. A ruling here could change that.

People with past drug use: The statute doesn’t only apply to current users. Someone who used drugs regularly five years ago might be classified as an “unlawful user” depending on how courts interpret the statute. Different courts have used different timeframes for determining when someone is “no longer” an active user.

Gun dealers: Licensed firearms dealers are legally responsible for not selling guns to prohibited people, but the background check system isn’t designed to distinguish between active intoxication and remote past use. They’ve been instructed by the ATF to deny sales to anyone who admits marijuana use on the form, regardless of state law permitting it.

Broader Implications

This case is part of a larger transformation in Second Amendment law. Since Bruen, courts have been reevaluating dozens of gun regulations through the history-and-tradition lens. Some have been struck down; others upheld.

If the Court rules expansively in Hemani’s favor, it could embolden challenges to other prohibited categories. Why should people convicted of nonviolent felonies be permanently disarmed? Historical records show that felons had fewer rights, but did they show permanent, lifetime disarmament? Similar questions could be raised about other categories.

If the Court takes a narrower approach, it signals that some categorical restrictions can survive the history-and-tradition test, which might limit the flood of constitutional challenges.

Even if the federal prohibition is struck down or narrowed, states could impose their own restrictions. Some states might choose to prohibit gun possession by drug users independently. This could create a patchwork where federal law changes but state protections remain.

What You Should Know Now

The law hasn’t changed yet. Until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, § 922(g)(3) remains in effect. If you’re prohibited now, you remain prohibited.

You can find out your status. When you attempt to purchase a firearm through a licensed dealer, you’ll go through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The dealer will contact the FBI, which checks multiple databases. If you’re in a prohibited category, the purchase will be denied. You can check your own background by requesting it from the FBI, though there’s a process and it takes time.

The form question creates a catch-22. Question 21.e on Form 4473 about drug use creates an impossible choice for many Americans. Legal organizations and policy advocates have argued this should be changed, but Congress would need to act to modify the form.

There’s a rights restoration process, though it’s limited. The federal government can grant relief from firearms restrictions under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). The Trump administration has indicated it will revitalize this process and establish clearer criteria for restoration applications. Applicants convicted of violent crimes will face a steeper burden.

You can follow this case as it develops. The Supreme Court website (supremecourt.gov) has the full docket for United States v. Hemani. Oral arguments are scheduled for March 2, 2026. The Court will post audio of the arguments and written briefs. Major legal websites like SCOTUSblog provide accessible commentary on Supreme Court cases.

The Tensions at Stake

This case sits at the intersection of multiple tensions in American law. There’s the conflict between state and federal authority—states legalizing marijuana while the federal government maintains it as illegal. There’s the tension between individual rights (the Second Amendment) and public safety (keeping guns away from people who might misuse them). And there’s a fundamental disagreement about how to interpret the Constitution—should we be bound strictly by practices from 1791, or can we apply constitutional principles to modern circumstances?

The Supreme Court’s answer to the Hemani case won’t resolve all these tensions. But it will significantly influence who can legally own guns in America and how strictly courts will scrutinize gun regulations going forward.

For the millions of Americans affected by § 922(g)(3)—whether as actual prohibited persons or as people confused about whether they can legally own guns—the Court’s decision in 2026 will have real consequences. Background checks blocked more than 300,000 illegal gun sales in 2020, and many of those denials were based on drug use prohibitions. That number could change dramatically depending on what happens this spring.

Oral arguments begin March 2, 2026. A decision will come by late June 2026, reshaping this corner of American gun law.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.