The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that the federal law barring gun possession by “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” cannot be applied to Ali Danial Hemani, a Texas man who reported using marijuana about every other day. This decision narrowly limits the state's power to disarm individuals based solely on drug use without further evidence of danger. This ruling, however, arrives amidst a legal landscape where the state's carceral apparatus continues to levy potential 15-year prison sentences against approximately 300 people annually under the same federal statute, while politically connected individuals like Hunter Biden receive presidential pardons for identical offenses.
Hemani, a dual citizen, was indicted in 2023 on a single count of violating the federal anti-guns-and-drugs law after an FBI search of his family’s home uncovered a Glock 9mm pistol and 60 grams of pot. The Justice Department accused Hemani of drug dealing, cocaine use, and sympathizing with Iran, though he was not charged with any other crimes or accused of using the weapon under the influence. His lawyer, Zachary Newland, noted Hemani “finally has closure.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court, stated the government had not demonstrated Hemani was dangerous, rejecting the argument that all regular marijuana users are categorically violent. The 1968 law, enacted partly in response to the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., created categories of people the federal government could disarm, including those convicted of felonies or dishonorably discharged from the military. The drug provision covers both those addicted and “unlawful users.” The opinion acknowledged that while the law was originally intended to keep guns from dangerous people, the millions of people now using marijuana cannot all be characterized as such.
The State's Contradictory Enforcement
The Trump administration, which defended the 1968 law, argued that guns and drugs constitute a dangerous combination. Justice Gorsuch noted the federal government's role in the proliferation of marijuana use, stating, “Whatever one thinks of these developments, the federal government has not just tolerated them; it helped fuel them,” adding that this leaves the state “awkwardly positioned to suggest that the millions of Americans who now regularly use marijuana are categorically and unusually dangerous.” This contradictory stance reveals the state's dual function: on one hand, facilitating conditions that normalize certain behaviors, and on the other, maintaining the legal framework to criminalize them, particularly among the working class and dispossessed.
This ruling comes amid shifting public and legal views on marijuana, with roughly half of U.S. states allowing recreational use and an even higher share permitting medicinal use. In April 2026, the Trump administration reclassified medical marijuana as a less-dangerous drug, yet recreational use remains illegal under federal law, maintaining a contradictory framework of state control and criminalization that serves to manage rather than resolve systemic issues.
Class Justice and Selective Application
The application of this law has consistently demonstrated clear class disparities. Hunter Biden, son of Democratic President Joe Biden, was convicted in 2024 under the same law for buying a gun while addicted to crack cocaine in 2018, only to be later pardoned by President Biden. This outcome highlights how the legal system, and the state apparatus it serves, can operate differently for those with access to political power and privilege, while others face lengthy prison sentences for similar offenses. The pardon of Hunter Biden underscores the selective enforcement inherent in a system designed to protect accumulated wealth and power.
The case drew unusual political alliances, with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) supporting Hemani. Cannabis legalization groups like NORML also backed the case. Cecillia Wang, legal director at the ACLU, stated, “The court has sent a strong message that the government cannot criminalize the conduct of large numbers of people by making categorical and unfounded assumptions about whether they are dangerous.” NORML called the ruling a “vindication of personal freedom,” while the Second Amendment Foundation hailed it as a “major victory for gun owners.” Conversely, gun safety groups like Everytown and Smart Approaches to Marijuana condemned the decision, with Everytown maintaining that “drugs and guns can make for a dangerous mix.” These statements, while framing the decision in terms of individual liberty or public safety, often obscure the underlying class dynamics of state power.
Limits of Legal Reform
The Supreme Court's decision was described as "exceedingly limited," explicitly reserving broader questions about the state's power to target people who are addicted to drugs or whose use makes them a danger to themselves or others. Justice Gorsuch clarified, “We do not address efforts to ban addicts, or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm.” Prosecutors retain the ability to charge marijuana users if evidence of danger exists. Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst, observed that the court “seems to have gone out of its way to avoid deciding any bigger questions,” predicting that these fundamental questions will inevitably return to the court. This narrow ruling, while offering a minor concession, leaves the foundational structures of the drug war and the state's power to define and criminalize "dangerous" populations largely intact, perpetuating a system where legal outcomes are shaped by class and political influence rather than universal justice. The state's capacity for social control through its carceral system remains largely unchallenged, merely refined at the margins.