In what promises to be a widely anticipated decision replete with compelling arguments on both sides of the charged issue, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to review whether a federal law that bans gun possession for illegal-drug users is constitutional.
The case, which will likely mark a significant development in the never-ending debate over Second Amendment rights, has gained additional attention due to the focus of the Trump administration.
A decision is expected by next summer.
Federal law — specifically the Gun Control Act of 1968 — explicitly prohibits individuals who are "unlawful users of or addicted to any controlled substance" from possessing firearms. Violations of the law can result in penalties of up to 10 years in prison.
Historically designed to separate illegal drug users from their weapons, recent challenges — including a 2025 federal court ruling — have questioned whether blanket prohibition is indeed constitutional.
This is a tough one.
While The Trump administration broadly supports gun rights, it also defends existing federal law banning firearm possession by drug users. As a result, the administration has formally asked the Supreme Court to reconsider an appeals court decision that favored Ali Daniel Hemani, an alleged habitual marijuana user who was charged with the crime after agents searched his home and found cocaine, marijuana, and a Glock 19.
Hemani, a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan, caught the attention of the FBI after a search of his phone at a border crossing revealed he was prepared to commit fraud at the direction of suspected affiliates of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, court filings show.
The administration is pushing to reinstate the charges, arguing the law is constitutional in its role of regulating gun possession among habitual illegal drug users. Incidentally, it's the same law that Hunter Biden was convicted under in June 2024 before former President Joe Biden pardoned his (former crackhead) son, after months of promising (lying that) he wouldn't do such a thing.
Here's more, via The New York Times:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found the law unconstitutional in most cases and said it could be applied only to those “presently impaired.”
The Trump administration urged the justices to reverse the ruling, saying the law should be upheld because habitual drug users with firearms presented “unique dangers to society” and raised the prospect of “armed, hostile encounters with police officers.”
The case will require the justices to apply the court’s recently adopted test for examining challenges to gun control measures. Formulated in 2022, the test requires courts to strike down such laws unless they are “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
[...]
At issue in the new case is a section of federal law that bars any person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing a firearm.
At least 32 states and territories have enacted similar laws restricting the possession of firearms by drug users and drug addicts.
Let's Look at the Issue From Both Sides
On one hand, it can be argued that a federal ban on gun ownership for illegal drug users is critical to public safety. Watching a few episodes of Dateline or Forensic Files is all it takes to understand that mixing serious substance abuse with and gun ownership far too often not only endangers the lives of drugs users, but also, innocent bystanders and others in the community as a whole.
Moreover, maintaining a ban against gun ownership by drug users preserves the credibility of federal firearm policy. Think about it: Seems to me that the federal government can't simultaneously outlaw specific drugs for their recognized dangers — fentanyl, for example — and then ignore those dangers when it comes to the possession of firearms.
On the other hand, those opposed to the federal ban would argue that the law often punishes individuals for non-violent behavior "simply" because of their drug abuse, on a blanket basis.
READ MORE: Fifth Circuit Strikes Down Law Forbidding Gun Ownership by Drug Users
As a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, with more than a few buds who are at least as staunch, I have to go with President Trump on this one. Call it watching too many episodes of Dateline, but the notion of a gun legally in the hands of a desperate addict should send chills down the spine of most if not all law-abiding citizens.
That said, we've reached the point: What say you?
