This Supreme Court case is bringing together 'strange bedfellows'

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts with Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor on 07 March 7, 2024. SHAWN THEW/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

In United States v. Hemani, the U.S. Supreme Court is examining a federal law that forbids gun ownership if one "is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." The Hemani in the case is Texas resident Ali Danial Hemani, who is arguing that the law violates the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

During a 2022 search, FBI agents found a gun, marijuana and cocaine in Hemani's home. And he acknowledged that he uses marijuana roughly every other day.

In an article published by the libertarian Reason on March 4, journalist Jacob Sullum notes that the case is uniting "strange bedfellows" from two different lobbies: conservative and libertarian critics of gun control, and liberal and progressive opponents of the War on Drugs.

"Under federal law," Sullum explains, "millions of Americans are committing felonies right now because they own guns and use marijuana — even if they live in states that have legalized the drug. There is nothing unconstitutional about that baffling situation, a Trump Administration lawyer assured the Supreme Court on Monday, (March 2), because cannabis consumers are analogous to 'habitual drunkards,' who historically, could be confined to workhouses or mental institutions. Most of the justices, including both Republican and Democratic appointees, seemed skeptical of that claim."

Sullum continues, "Their agreement reflected the trans-partisan alliances inspired by this case, which illustrates the potential for common ground between right-leaning critics of gun control and left-leaning critics of the War on Drugs."

Hemani, Sullum notes, was charged with illegal gun possession in 2023 after the FBI search of his home.

"The case never went to trial," according to Sullum. "The charge was dismissed based on a 2024 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which held that the Second Amendment bars such prosecutions when they are based on nothing beyond the elements specified by the statute. Those elements do not require any showing that the defendant's pattern of drug use disrupts his own life, let alone that it poses a threat to public safety. Yet the Trump Administration, despite its avowed commitment to 'protecting Second Amendment rights,' wants the Supreme Court to reject the 5th Circuit's logic and reinstate the case against Hemani."

Sullum adds, "Counterintuitively, a bunch of blue states that have legalized marijuana are siding with the Trump Administration, condemning a decision in which the country's most conservative appeals court upheld the constitutional rights of cannabis consumers."

The "strange bedfellows," according to Sullum, are showing up in legal briefs "urging the Supreme Court to uphold the 5th Circuit's ruling."

"They include the Drug Policy Alliance, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as well as leading Second Amendment groups such as the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, and the Firearms Policy Coalition," Sullum observes. "Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has not previously shown much interest in defending the Second Amendment, is siding with Hemani…. The Trump Administration's argument hinges on equating even occasional or moderate cannabis consumers with people who would have been deemed 'habitual drunkards' at the Founding."

Sullum adds, "As Justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor noted during Monday's oral argument, that comparison makes little sense."

From Your Site Articles