WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling soon in United States v. Hemani, a case that examines whether individuals who use drugs retain Second Amendment rights to possess firearms.

The case arrives against a backdrop of prior rulings addressing federal drug enforcement and constitutional limits. In 2005’s Gonzales v. Raich, the Court held 6-3 that Congress could criminalize the personal, medical use of marijuana under the Commerce Clause, even in states where it was legal. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, writing that the marijuana at issue had never been bought or sold, never crossed state lines, and had no demonstrable effect on the national market, and that if Congress could regulate it under the Commerce Clause, it could regulate virtually anything.

Thomas has taken varied positions on drug-related searches. He joined majorities barring warrantless infrared scans of homes and drug-sniffing dogs at doorsteps but dissented when the Court limited dog sniffs during traffic stops. In Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, a 2009 case involving a strip search of a 13-year-old student suspected of possessing drugs, Thomas concurred in part and dissented in part, stating he did not believe the search violated the Fourth Amendment and that school officials should have broad authority to maintain discipline and ensure student safety.

Legal analyst Lyle Denniston observed that Justice Anthony Kennedy’s vote against the marijuana growers in Gonzales v. Raich “may be baffling” to those aware of his usual support for state power against congressional overreach.