October Term 2025 · Docket 24-1234
Can the federal gun ban apply to someone who uses illegal drugs regularly?
United States v. Hemani asks whether the federal ban on gun possession by unlawful drug users can constitutionally apply to Ali Danial Hemani. The government defends the charge. Hemani argues the law cannot be applied to him.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Harris argued the law is constitutional as applied to habitual illegal drug users, relying on historical analogues like habitual drunkards, vagrancy, civil commitment, and surety laws. She said the ban is temporary and within the user's control. She also asserted the law embodies Congress's judgment that gun possession by habitual users or addicts is dangerous, citing Heller for category-based restrictions.
Murphy agreed categorical prohibitions may be permissible but insisted the government must prove under Bruen that any drug-based ban maps onto historical tradition. She argued the unlawful user prong is unconstitutionally vague for lack of fair notice. She said deferring to congressional findings alone would abandon Bruen's historical analogue requirement.
Murphy also contended historical tradition supports disarming drug addicts and called that the dominant modern state approach. She invited a narrow ruling that the government cannot win by showing only that a person uses an unknown amount of marijuana a few times a week.
The justices tested several assumptions. Justice Gorsuch asked whether minimal, regular marijuana use qualifies as unlawful use subject to disarmament. Justice Barrett asked what evidence supports that regular marijuana use increases dangerousness. Justice Alito asked whether illegal drugs were part of the historical landscape and whether alcohol is different.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 1-9 — Transcript, file page 1, lines 1-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 103, lines 41-19 — Transcript, file page 103, lines 41-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 51-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 47-53 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 47-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 130, lines 33-7 — Transcript, file page 130, lines 33-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 136, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 136, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 13-21 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 13-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 34, lines 35-35 — Transcript, file page 34, lines 35-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 34, lines 7-33 — Transcript, file page 34, lines 7-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 38, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 38, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 45-53 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 45-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 43-21 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 43-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 39-15 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 39-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 77, lines 21-55 — Transcript, file page 77, lines 21-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 86, lines 23-41 — Transcript, file page 86, lines 23-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 92, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 92, lines 11-23
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Federal law, Section 922(g)(3), makes it a crime for an unlawful drug user to possess a gun. Hemani argues the law cannot be applied to him. The government defends the charge.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 130, lines 33-7 — Transcript, file page 130, lines 33-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 77, lines 21-55 — Transcript, file page 77, lines 21-55
How the case got here
Sarah M. Harris argued for the government. Erin E. Murphy argued for Hemani. The Chief Justice noted that Harris began the argument and that the case was submitted after the argument concluded.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 136, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 136, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 39-15 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 39-15
What each side wants
Hemani asks the Court to uphold the decision below. He says whether the ruling strikes the whole law or applies only to him is not critical to his side.
The government asks the Court to uphold the charge under the unlawful user prong, which targets people who use illegal drugs rather than a separate prong about addiction.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 130, lines 33-7 — Transcript, file page 130, lines 33-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 39-15 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 39-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 77, lines 21-55 — Transcript, file page 77, lines 21-55
What each side says
The government argues the law is constitutional as applied to habitual illegal drug users. It points to old laws about habitual drunkards, vagrancy, civil commitment, and surety laws as historical analogues. It also says the ban is temporary and within the user's control.
Hemani's side agrees categorical bans may be allowed. But insists the government must prove the ban maps onto historical tradition under Bruen, a case requiring modern gun laws to match old traditions. His side also argues the unlawful user prong is unconstitutionally vague, giving no fair notice.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 130, lines 33-7 — Transcript, file page 130, lines 33-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 39-15 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 39-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 77, lines 21-55 — Transcript, file page 77, lines 21-55
What the justices asked
Justice Gorsuch asked whether minimal, regular marijuana use qualifies as unlawful use that justifies disarmament.
Justice Barrett asked what evidence supports the claim that regular marijuana use increases dangerousness. Justice Alito asked whether illegal drugs were part of the historical landscape, and whether alcohol is different. Justice Thomas asked what public safety concerns justified disarming other vagrancy categories beyond drunkards.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 51-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 13-21 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 13-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 34, lines 7-33 — Transcript, file page 34, lines 7-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 23-31
Why it matters
The case tests how far Bruen's history-based test reaches. The justices' questions show the fight turns on comparing old categories, like habitual drunkards, with modern drug use. The government leaned on Congress's judgment about dangerousness. Hemani's side said Congress's findings alone cannot replace the required historical comparison.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 130, lines 33-7 — Transcript, file page 130, lines 33-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 77, lines 21-55 — Transcript, file page 77, lines 21-55
What the Court decided
The government cannot prosecute a lawful gun owner as an unlawful drug user without first showing that his drug use makes him a danger to others. The automatic ban that the statute applies to any regular drug user conflicts with the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's judgment in favor of Mr. Hemani, leaving in place the dismissal of the indictment against him.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 1, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 1, lines 1-1
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 4, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 4, lines 1-1
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
- Official Court disposition document (date not established)
- Official Court disposition document (date not established)
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 130, lines 33-7 — Transcript, file page 130, lines 33-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 77, lines 21-55 — Transcript, file page 77, lines 21-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 130, lines 33-7 — Transcript, file page 130, lines 33-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 77, lines 21-55 — Transcript, file page 77, lines 21-55
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 3 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 4 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Removed an unsupported statement that the Court had not ruled; the available source set did not establish that absence.
- Revision 5 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Corrected unsupported no-ruling language and clarified that the article's disposition summary is incomplete.
- Revision 6 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Added the holding and disposition from the verified official Court opinion.
- Revision 7 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.