U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled skepticism Monday as they heard arguments in a case challenging a federal law that prohibits habitual drug users from possessing firearms.
The case, U.S. v. Hemani, centers on a Texas man charged with a felony after FBI agents executing a search warrant found a pistol, marijuana, and cocaine in his home. The law at issue bars anyone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from owning a firearm.
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to review the case after a lower court struck down the statute, ruling that it violated the Second Amendment.
Representing the federal government, Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued that founding-era laws restricting “habitual drunkards” from carrying weapons provide historical support for disarming regular drug users. Harris contended that early 20th-century drug laws align with those earlier restrictions on intoxicated individuals.
“Drugs are similar in the sense that there is a similar tradition by use of the intoxicants on a habitual basis,” Harris told the Court.
Several justices appeared unconvinced.
Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned how the government defines a “habitual” user and suggested the historical comparison may be flawed.
“The government has not been able to define what a user is,” Gorsuch said, adding that founding-era definitions of “drunkard” may not align with modern interpretations.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also pressed Harris on the frequency of drug use required to trigger disarmament.
“Someone who only drinks or takes an intoxicant once every other day and is not doing so while he is using a firearm is irrelevant,” Jackson said, suggesting that historical standards targeted individuals exhibiting far more dangerous behavior.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a hypothetical involving someone who regularly uses another person’s prescription medication, asking whether that conduct would warrant disarmament under the statute. Harris indicated that repeated unlawful prescription use could qualify.
Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the government’s emphasis on marijuana’s federal illegality, noting the substance’s evolving legal status.
“You seem to rely quite a bit on the illegality of marijuana,” Thomas said.
Erin Murphy, representing Hemani, argued that historical drunkard laws were tied to specific public misconduct rather than private substance use.
“The habitual drunkard tradition cannot support disarming someone based on the fact he consumes a few times a week a controlled substance,” Murphy said.
The Court’s ruling could have broad implications as states increasingly legalize marijuana while federal law continues to classify it as a Schedule I substance.
