The Supreme Court is diving headfirst into a constitutional clash that pits Second Amendment freedoms against federal restrictions on drug users owning firearms.
The Hill reported that the Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will scrutinize a federal law banning gun possession for those deemed unlawful users of or addicted to controlled substances, with a ruling anticipated by next summer.
This case isn’t just a legal footnote; it’s a battleground for gun rights, pushed to the forefront by the Trump administration, which urged the justices to take it up this term.
Federal law is clear: if you’re hooked on or regularly using illegal drugs, you can’t possess a firearm, and breaking this rule could land you up to 10 years behind bars.
This isn’t some dusty statute gathering cobwebs—prosecutions happen regularly nationwide, as U.S. Circuit Judge Stephen Higginson noted, with judges handling these cases “daily across the country."
Yet, here’s the rub: while the law sounds tough, lower courts have been split on its constitutionality since the Supreme Court expanded gun rights in 2022, demanding that restrictions align with historical firearm regulation traditions.
Enter Hunter Biden, convicted last year for owning a Colt Cobra revolver in 2018 while battling a crack cocaine addiction, only to later argue the law infringed on his Second Amendment rights—until a presidential pardon from his father halted the fight.
Then there’s Ali Danial Hemani, a dual U.S.-Pakistani citizen and alleged frequent marijuana user, whose case is at the heart of this Supreme Court review after agents found cocaine, marijuana, and a Glock 19 in his home.
An appeals court tossed Hemani’s charge, ruling the law’s broad reach didn’t square with gun rights since prosecutors couldn’t prove he was under the influence when the weapon was found.
The Justice Department isn’t backing down, painting Hemani as a potential risk with alleged ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and a 2020 trip to Iran to honor Qasem Soleimani, the general killed by a U.S. drone strike under President Trump’s orders.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer called this “the archetypal case for this Court’s review,” pressing the justices to settle the law’s fate.
But Hemani’s attorneys counter that the court should stick to the “limited allegations” in the indictment, not broader claims about his associations (Court Filings by Hemani’s Attorneys).
This case isn’t happening in a vacuum—the Supreme Court’s decision could ripple through similar state laws in over 30 states, as the Justice Department warns, reshaping how gun restrictions are enforced.
Second Amendment advocates are cheering the challenge, while the Trump administration, despite its pro-gun stance, defends the federal statute, showing even conservative champions can draw a line when drugs enter the equation.
Meanwhile, the court itself soldiers on amid a government shutdown that’s closed its building to the public, proving that while funding may falter, the wheels of justice keep turning.
Some judges have already deemed this drug-related gun ban unconstitutional in certain contexts post-2022, while last year the court upheld a similar restriction on gun ownership for those under domestic violence restraining orders.