United States v. Hemani

The Supreme Court ruled on two Second Amendment cases this term: United States v. Hemani and Wolford v. Lopez. In Hemani, the court unanimously rejected a federal law disarming daily marijuana users, while in Wolford v. Lopez, a 6-3 decision struck down a Hawaii law restricting firearms on private public property. Both rulings applied the Bruen framework, requiring governments to prove regulations align with historical firearm traditions.

Texas had the most cases argued before the Supreme Court during the 2025-26 term, with five cases involving Texans, while the next closest states had two. The cases focused on federal laws or precedents applicable beyond Texas, and appeals from the 5th Circuit, which frequently faces reversals by the Supreme Court, may contribute to Texas's prominence.

Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU, discussed her Supreme Court argument in Trump v. Barbara, challenging an executive order to end birthright citizenship, at SCOTUSblog’s term-in-review event. The discussion also covered the ACLU’s recent cases, including a controversial gun rights case and a voting rights loss.

The Supreme Court held a final conference before recess to consider relisted cases, including multiple gun-related petitions examining age restrictions on firearm possession under the Second Amendment. Additional cases involved appeal waivers and an antitrust dispute between Apple and Epic Games.

The Supreme Court features an exhibition on the nation's 250th anniversary, highlighting legal arguments for independence. Justices have delivered historical lessons in recent cases, referencing colonial-era laws and Founding Fathers' practices, with examples from cases like Abouammo v. United States and United States v. Hemani.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ali Hemani in United States v. Hemani, finding his prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) for firearm possession as an 'unlawful user' of marijuana violated the Second Amendment. The court highlighted the statute's vagueness, as it fails to clearly define 'unlawful user,' creating ambiguity about who is prohibited from firearm possession.

In United States v. Hemani, Justices Gorsuch, Jackson, and Alito agreed the government failed to prove its justification for disarming Ali Hemani under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), citing his marijuana use. The case hinges on Second Amendment protections and the requirement for the government to demonstrate a permissible reason tied to the defendant's conduct, as established by precedents like Bruen and Rahimi.

The Supreme Court released opinions in three cases, including United States v. Hemani, Hunter v. United States, and T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp. Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced legislation to televise Supreme Court proceedings, which has long been resisted by the justices.

The Supreme Court ruled on June 18 that the federal ban on gun possession for drug users is unconstitutional when applied to occasional marijuana users, requiring the government to prove drug use poses a danger. The unanimous decision in United States v. Hemani emphasized that the Second Amendment limits the government’s power to categorically label groups as dangerous, while allowing the ban to apply if public safety risks are demonstrated.

The Supreme Court ruled against federal regulations disarming illegal drug users, blocking the Trump administration's case against Ali Danial Hemani, a man who possessed a firearm and marijuana. The decision rejected the administration's argument that historical disarmament of habitual drunkards justifies modern laws barring drug users from gun ownership.