Skip to Content
Law Office of Daniel Horowitz Law Office of Daniel Horowitz
Call Us Today! 925-291-5388
Top

Bad Facts Make Bad Law - Overview: United States v. Hemani

Bad Facts Make Bad Law - Overview: United States v. Hemani (No. 24-1234)

Ask the average person whether a drug dealer found with guns should have his guns taken away and most people would say yes.  Even worse if he is addicted to drugs.  So the case of US v. Hemani will have a strong bent or prejudice against the defendant and in favor of taking away his guns.  Better facts would be a former military officer who served his country well but started drinking a lot due to PTSD when he returned.  He gets arrested for a DUI and a gun is found unloaded in his glove compartment.  He sobers up and ends up getting married, has children and good job.  Should this person be deprived of his gun rights?   The facts may decide how a case raising these issues is decided.  

United States v. Hemani is a criminal case currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court in the October 2025-2026 term. Certiorari was granted on October 20, 2025. The case originates from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in January 2025.

Background

  • In 2022, FBI agents searched the home of Ali Danial Hemani (a dual U.S.-Pakistan citizen) and found a firearm, marijuana (approximately 60 grams), and cocaine (approximately 4.7 grams).
  • Hemani was indicted on one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits any person who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" from possessing a firearm.
  • Hemani moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment as applied to him.
  • The district court granted the motion (with the government's agreement at that stage), and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, relying on its prior precedent in United States v. Connelly (2024), which held that the statute cannot constitutionally apply to someone not proven to be intoxicated or impaired at the time of possession.
  • The government appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted review amid a growing circuit split on similar challenges post-Bruen.

Central Issue

The primary question presented is:

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)—the federal statute prohibiting possession of firearms by a person who "is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance"—violates the Second Amendment as applied to the respondent (Hemani).

This is an as-applied challenge, meaning it questions the statute's constitutionality in Hemani's specific circumstances, rather than a facial challenge to the law's validity in all applications.

Key Legal Issues and Arguments

The case tests the application of the Supreme Court's framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (2022), which requires that modern firearm regulations be consistent with the nation's "historical tradition" of firearm regulation. (This was reaffirmed in United States v. Rahimi (202

  1. Government's Position:
    • § 922(g)(3) is constitutional because historical analogues (e.g., laws disarming intoxicated individuals or those deemed dangerous) justify disarming habitual or unlawful drug users, who pose risks of impaired judgment or misuse of firearms.

The Fifth Circuit's requirement—that the government prove intoxication at the exact time of possession—is too narrow, conflicts with precedent, historical tradition, and common sense.

Broader disarmament of regular users (even if sober at the moment of possession) aligns with traditions of restricting arms from those likely to be irresponsible.

Hemani's (Respondent's) Position:

  1. No historical tradition supports permanently or broadly disarming sober individuals based solely on past or habitual drug use.
    • Founding-era laws focused on intoxication while armed (e.g., bans on carrying while drunk), not on status as a regular user.
    • The statute sweeps too broadly by disarming non-violent, non-impaired users without individualized findings of danger.

Note: It is strange but if you support the 2nd Amendment you have to support the arguments of a drug dealer!

  1. Broader Context:
    • The historical tradition argument wears thin because gun control was not an issue in early times.  We apply traditions from the start of our nation to complex present situations.
    • Contributes to a circuit split: Some circuits (e.g., Third, Seventh) have upheld the statute in certain applications by analogizing to historical disarmament of the mentally ill or dangerous; others (e.g., Fifth, Eighth in some cases) have struck it down as-applied when no contemporaneous impairment is shown.
    • Implications extend beyond Hemani: A ruling could affect millions of marijuana users (especially in states where it is legal) and clarify how far Bruen's history-and-tradition test limits federal gun restrictions for non-violent offenders.
    • The good news for 2nd Amendment advocates is that the Supreme Court is well aware that the facts are bad and they will not necessarily throw out the 2nd Amendment just because of the facts in this case.  However the cable news coverage will certainly jump on the facts.

Current Status (as of December 17, 2025)

  • The case is pending.
  • Briefing is ongoing or upcoming.
  • Oral argument is likely scheduled for early 2026.
  • A decision is expected by June or July 2026.

This case is one of several Second Amendment disputes on the Court's docket this term, highlighting ongoing debates over the scope of gun rights post-Bruen.  We believe that disarmament should turn on the individual case.  Obviously a drug dealer who is also an addict is very different from someone who may have had issues is still a highly trusted member of societiy.  Be wary of cases with bad facts that are then used to deprive Americans of their 2nd Amendment rights.

Daniel Horowitz is a strong 2nd Amendment advocate.  If you have a 2nd Amendment issue call Daniel for an initial consultation at (925) 283-1863.