WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ali Hemani in United States v. Hemani, determining that his prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) was inconsistent with the Second Amendment. The statute makes it a felony for an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance to possess a firearm.

Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion. The government prosecuted Hemani under the allegation that he smoked marijuana approximately every other day. Hemani argued in his brief that the "unlawful user" provision of the statute was void for vagueness.

During arguments, Justice Gorsuch stated that the government "has not been able to define what a user is." He noted the government previously argued the term "unlawful user" covered anyone who used a drug "in the past year" but later contended that "a pattern" of drug use was needed. He added that the government advocated for a "habitual [use]" gloss that "conflates" the user prong with the statute's separate "addict" prong, asking the principal deputy solicitor general, "[T]ell me how [that's] so clear."

The majority opinion surveyed how "habitual drunkards" were treated in the Founding era regarding the Second Amendment. The government contended that these historical cases were analogous to drug users for the purposes of the statute. The Court's majority opinion concluded that historical laws concerning habitual drunkards applied when their drinking "rendered them practically incapacitated and incapable of managing their affairs." The majority opinion stated that such historical laws "differ dramatically" from Section 922(g)(3) "on every single metric the government invites us to consider." It also noted that historical laws "targeted different kinds of people, did so for different purposes, and operated in different ways" compared to Section 922(g)(3).

The Court asked, "how much marijuana does Mr. Hemani use, in what potency, and to what effect?" It also questioned, "Is he routinely unable to manage his affairs, a risk to himself or his family?" The opinion further inquired if Hemani uses "a mild gummy as a sleep aid a few times a week," before stating, "[w]e do not know and, the government says, it doesn't matter."

The majority opinion described its decision as "narrow." It specified that the ruling did not address the possibility of disarming "addicts" or "those presently intoxicated." The opinion also stated it did not address a prosecution under Section 922(g)(3) supported by "individualized proof that the defendant's drug use renders him a danger to himself or others," nor did it address disarmament under a separate provision regarding convicted felons. Chief Justice John Roberts was in the majority for this decision.