On March 2, 2026, the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case US v. Hemani. At issue in the case is whether Section 922 (g)(3) of the 1968 Gun Control Act is a violation of the Second Amendment rights of cannabis users. Section 922 (g)(3) makes it illegal “for any person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802))” to possess a firearm. While cannabis is legal in some form in the majority of US states, it is still federally illegal, and a person who reports cannabis use—medical or recreational—on the mandatory Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) firearm transaction form is disqualified from firearm ownership. Based on federal courts’ interpretation of ATF rulemaking, to be considered an unlawful user, “one needed to have engaged in regular use over a period of time proximate to or contemporaneous with the possession of the firearm.”
In US v. Hemani, the FBI obtained a warrant to conduct a search of the Texas home of Ali Danial Hemani. During the search, they discovered a Glock 9mm pistol and cannabis. Hemani admitted that he used cannabis regularly (every other day), and he was then indicted by a grand jury for violating Section 922 (g)(3). Hemani moved to have the indictment dismissed as a violation of his Second Amendment rights. The district court and the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed. The case was then appealed to the US Supreme Court.
During oral arguments, the attorneys for each side will present their legal arguments defending their positions, and the Supreme Court Justices can ask questions to clarify or challenge these assertions. Though a final decision of the case does not need to be made until the current Supreme Court session ends in June 2026, the oral arguments serve as a preview of how the Justices are thinking about the case, what legal arguments they find the most interesting, and what the decision of the Court ultimately may be. This blog previews five things to watch for in the US v. Hemani oral arguments.
How will the Bruen “Text, History, and Tradition” Test be Applied?
In their 2022 opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court set a new standard for how they would review challenges to Second Amendment rights. Previously, courts had employed a standard that balanced public safety concerns against the burden of the proposed gun restriction. However, in Bruen, the Supreme Court abandoned that standard and instead replaced it with the “text, history, and tradition” test. Under the new standard, for a gun regulation to be found constitutional, it would have to pass a two-pronged test: 1) whether the Second Amendment’s text covers the individual’s conduct in question, and 2) if the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
However, the Court in Bruen did not provide clear guidance on how “historical tradition” should be interpreted and applied. This has led to confusion in the lower courts in ruling on gun regulation cases generally and on cases dealing with restrictions on gun ownership by cannabis users, in particular. As previously discussed, the Circuit Courts have come to conflicting determinations on applying the “text, history, and tradition” test in these cases. This has resulted in a lack of uniformity in judicial interpretation and standards for protecting gun ownership across the country.
The Supreme Court’s oral arguments in US v. Hemani may provide clues based on the questions asked and the tone of the discussion as to how rigidly the justices interpret the “text, history, and tradition” test. Are, for example, laws at the country’s founding that disarmed those who were intoxicated or suffering from mental illness historically analogous enough to those today that prevent cannabis users’ access to firearms?
Will the Standard for Prohibition be Cannabis Use or Cannabis Impairment?
A key question in Hemani is how courts should conceptualize intoxication under the Second Amendment’s historical framework. Statutes from the US founding era and beyond demonstrate that colonial, state, and local governments commonly regulated the conduct of carrying or firing weapons while actively intoxicated, treating drunkenness as a temporary condition that heightened the risk of disorder or violence. These laws typically target behavior rather than imposing categorical, ongoing disarmament based on a person’s status as someone who consumes alcohol. By contrast, Section 922(g)(3) bars firearm possession by anyone deemed an “unlawful user” of cannabis, even if the individual is not intoxicated during the inciting incident that leads to arrest. For example, though cannabis was found in his home, and he admitted to being a cannabis user, there is no proof that Hemani was under the influence at the time of his arrest.
The Supreme Court will likely have to decide whether cannabis use is more comparable to historical intoxication laws, meaning that restrictions should be limited to periods of actual impairment, or whether it should be treated like other historically disarmed groups, such as those considered dangerous or outside the political community. How the Court resolves this distinction could reshape the boundary between public safety regulation and constitutional protection for cannabis consumers who currently face a federal firearms prohibition regardless of any showing of present intoxication or dangerous conduct. The questions the Supreme Court justices ask may illuminate how they are conceptualizing this distinction.
How Does Cannabis Rescheduling Factor In?
In December 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order that instructed the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to expedite the process of rescheduling cannabis’ federal classification from its current listing under Schedule I (no accepted medical use and high potential for abuse) to the less restrictive Schedule III (some accepted medical use and moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence). There was no specific timeline, however, for the rescheduling process to be completed.
The pending rescheduling could be a factor in how the Supreme Court justices view the constitutionality of the Section 922 (g)(3) prohibition. Section 922 (g)(3) applies to any “controlled substance,” regardless of schedule, so even if cannabis were moved out of Schedule I, users would still fall within the federal firearms prohibition. However, the proposed rescheduling does potentially weaken the federal government’s argument of the inherent dangers of cannabis use and any argument that users of cannabis are presumptively risky and should therefore have their access to firearms restricted. As Schedule III concedes that there are medical uses for the controlled substance, the justices could potentially question if there is a distinction to be made on prohibiting gun ownership for those that use the drug recreationally as opposed to those that use it medicinally. The case for banning gun ownership based on what medicine a person takes may be constitutionally untenable, as it becomes less comparable to historical gun restrictions.
Will the Court Decision Be Broad or Narrow in Scope?
The oral argument discussion may also contain clues as to how narrow or broad the application of the Supreme Court’s ruling will be. In several of the Circuit Court decisions that examined the issue of gun ownership for cannabis users, the scope of the ruling was very narrow and was to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The Circuit courts have not blanketly declared Section 922 (g)(3) unconstitutional in any of their rulings; what they have instead done is overturn the prohibition on a case-by-case basis depending on the individual circumstances or contingent on a smaller group identity ( for example, that they are under the influence of cannabis at the time of arrest).
Oral arguments may provide clues as to the potential scope of the ultimate Supreme Court decision. Questions directed toward tailoring the regulation may reveal how expansive the Court’s final opinion could be. Are the justices looking to settle this issue and clarify legal interpretation nationwide, or do they want to take a more incremental approach that leaves decisions on the viability of Section 922 (g)(3) subject to the circumstances of individual defendants or membership in categories of particular types of defendants?
Are the Justices Predictable?
While oral arguments are a chance for justices to ask questions and then refine their views based on the legal opinions presented, the justices do not come into cases without any preconceived notions or judicial interpretations. Based on their questions in oral arguments, in addition to their previous court opinions and judicial scholarship, there may be some clues as to how the justices may ultimately vote in the final US v. Hemani ruling.
For example, Justice Clarence Thomas has historically opposed gun control restrictions that have come before the Court. He is the author of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen majority opinion that established the “text, history, and tradition” test, a higher standard than gun regulations previously had to meet to be constitutional. Justice Thomas was also the sole dissenter in the Supreme Court’s 8-1 US v. Rahimi ruling that upheld a federal law prohibiting firearm possession for those that are under domestic violence restraining orders. It would therefore not be unexpected for him to support overturning the federal prohibition.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, however, have generally supported firearm restrictions and have been critical of Bruen’s “text, history, and tradition” test. Sotomayor and Kagan dissented in Bruen (Jackson was not yet on the Court in 2022), and Jackson’s concurring opinion in US v. Rahimi was critical of the Bruen ruling. They may be more likely to ask questions that are more supportive of the federal prohibition remaining in place.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, as a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, dissented in Kanter v. Barr and, in that case, would have overturned a ban on the possession of firearms by those with felony convictions. She argued that “legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous.” She opposed the categorical prohibition of firearm ownership on all felons and argued that only those who are proven to be dangerous should lose their ability to possess firearms. Her questions in Hemani may focus on the blanket prohibition of gun ownership for all cannabis users and the vagueness of the term “unlawful user.”
Whether the justices conform to preconceived conceptions about the issue at stake in US v. Hemani or ask questions that demonstrate that they may be charting a new path will be helpful for predicting the Court’s final ruling.