By Barton Morris | June 18, 2026
On June 18, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a 9-0 decision that changes the landscape for tens of thousands of Americans. In United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234, the Court held that the government cannot prosecute someone under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) — the federal statute that criminalizes firearm possession by “unlawful users” of controlled substances — based solely on admitted marijuana use.
The ruling is narrow, unanimous, and rooted in a careful application of the Second Amendment. Here is what it means, why it matters for firearm rights restoration, and where the law goes from here.
What the Law Said Before Hemani
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), it is a federal crime for anyone who is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance to ship, transport, receive, or possess any firearm or ammunition. The government had long interpreted “unlawful user” broadly: if you used marijuana with any regularity — even privately, even in a state where it was legal, even without any evidence of danger — you were disarmed. Period.
For the population Barton Morris focuses on — people rebuilding their lives after a conviction — § 922(g)(3) has been a recurring nightmare. A client completes every step of a restoration process. Their rights are restored at the state level. Then a background check reveals a single marijuana-possession record or an admission of periodic cannabis use. Under the old federal interpretation, that was enough to disqualify them. The Second Amendment restoration they fought for was, in practice, incomplete.
The practical effect of § 922(g)(3) was lifetime disarmament for millions of Americans — including many with no violent history, no trafficking connection, and no demonstrated danger to anyone.
What Happened in Hemani
Ali Hemani is a dual U.S.-Pakistan citizen, born in Texas, with stable employment and no violent or trafficking history. In 2022, federal agents searched his family home amid a terrorism investigation. Hemani cooperated fully: he surrendered a firearm, directed agents to marijuana on the property, and admitted in a voluntary interview that he used marijuana roughly every other day.
Six months later, the government indicted him under § 922(g)(3) — not for terrorism, not for drug trafficking, not because he was dangerous, but because he was an “unlawful user” of marijuana. The potential penalty: up to 15 years in federal prison plus lifetime disarmament. The district court dismissed the indictment. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted cert. Today, the Court affirmed again.
The Court’s Reasoning — and Why It Matters
The Court applied the framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen (2022) and United States v. Rahimi (2024). The analysis proceeds in two steps:
The government’s best argument was to analogize § 922(g)(3) to historical “habitual drunkard” laws — statutes that confined, committed, or bound over people whose alcohol use had rendered them practically incapacitated. The Court rejected that analogy:
-
-
- The “why” test: Historical drunkard laws existed to prevent people who could not manage their own affairs from harming themselves or others. § 922(g)(3) applies to anyone who uses any controlled substance with any regularity — from a mild marijuana gummy taken a few times a week to a college student using a friend’s Adderall to study. There is no requirement that the person be impaired, unable to function, or a danger to anyone.
- The “how” test: Historical drunkard laws were preventive and remedial. § 922(g)(3) is a blunt categorical ban that triggers lifetime disarmament the moment regular use begins, with no individualized hearing, no opportunity to prove current sobriety, and no path back.
-
The Court also noted that early America had a “culture of copious drinking” — and that the very statutes the government cited would have applied to a vast portion of the population if read as broadly as the government reads § 922(g)(3) today.
What Hemani Does NOT Say
Hemani is a narrow ruling. It does not legalize marijuana. It does not invalidate the federal Controlled Substances Act. It does not strike down § 922(g)(3) in its entirety.
What the Court actually held: the government cannot use § 922(g)(3) to prosecute a law-abiding citizen for firearm possession based solely on admitted marijuana use, where there is no individualized showing of dangerousness or impairment.
What this means for other contexts:
-
-
- A person who is actually engaged in drug trafficking, is demonstrably impaired, or presents an individualized danger can still be disqualified.
- A person who uses multiple controlled substances presents a different factual record and may not fall within Hemani’s specific facts.
- Federal law still prohibits firearm possession by anyone simultaneously using marijuana in a state where it is illegal. State-level prohibitions are unaffected.
-
Why This Matters for Firearm Rights Restoration
For restoration clients, the Hemani decision is a direct reinforcement of the principle that Second Amendment rights cannot be stripped without an individualized inquiry.
Right now in Michigan, for instance, a person who has completed a restoration petition may still carry the federal stain of a marijuana-related record. That record was enough, before today, to justify a § 922(g)(3) prosecution that would undo everything the restoration process was supposed to accomplish. Hemani closes that door for the most common scenario: isolated past marijuana use with no current impairment or danger.
More broadly, the case matters for the framework. The Court applied Bruen with care, refusing to accept the government’s attempt to stretch a historical analogy beyond what it actually supports. That methodology — comparing the actual “why” and “how” of historical laws to the modern statute — is the exact same analytical tool used to challenge other categorical disarmament regimes. Purgatory statutes. Automatic relief denial after one disqualifying event. Mental-health prohibitions without procedural safeguards. All of these are now on a firmer footing for challenge because Hemani shows the Court will apply Bruen rigorously, even 9-0.
What to Do Next If Marijuana Is Standing Between You and Your Rights
If you have a federal or state marijuana record and believe it is being used to deny your firearm rights — whether in a restoration proceeding, a background check, or a pending prosecution — here is your roadmap:
-
- Document your current status. Sustained sobriety, treatment program completion, and character references are the three pillars of every successful restoration claim. Document them before you need them.
- Get a formal legal analysis. The interaction between state-legal marijuana use and federal § 922(g)(3) is now more complex than it was yesterday. A federal defense attorney licensed in your circuit can review whether Hemani applies directly to your situation.
- If you are in a restoration proceeding — or are about to file one — make the § 922(g)(3) argument explicitly. Many practitioners missed this argument before today. It should be on the table now.
- If you have been charged under § 922(g)(3) based on marijuana use, move to dismiss under Hemani immediately. This is now binding Supreme Court precedent in your circuit.
Free Eligibility Review: If marijuana or any other federal prohibition is standing between you and full firearm rights restoration, go to armedagain.com. We review state and federal disqualification histories, identify which bars are challengeable, and build the three-pillar evidence package that holds up in court.
The Bottom Line
The Supreme Court’s 9-0 decision in United States v. Hemani is not just a marijuana case. It is a due-process case. It is a Second Amendment case. It is a restoration case.
The Court said today that the government cannot treat a single marijuana admission as a lifetime gun ban without any individualized inquiry into whether the person is actually dangerous. For the tens of thousands of Americans who have used marijuana — and who are otherwise law-abiding — that is a monumental victory.
For the people working to restore full citizenship after a conviction, it is something more specific: confirmation that the Second Amendment rights they are fighting to recover are real, and that the government cannot quietly use a different federal statute to undo what a state court has already put back.
If you are restoring firearm rights in Michigan or any of the other states we serve — and a federal marijuana record is in your file — today is the day to call. Go to armedagain.com. Free eligibility review. Your Second Amendment. Your Second Chance.
— Barton Morris
Law Offices of Barton Morris
Your Second Amendment. Your Second Chance.
“