By John Kruzel
WASHINGTON, March 2 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court appeared divided on Monday over the legality of a federal law being defended by President Donald Trump’s administration that bars users of illegal drugs from owning guns in another case testing the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”
The justices heard arguments in the administration’s appeal of a lower court’s decision to dismiss on Second Amendment grounds an illegal gun possession charge against Ali Hemani, an American-Pakistani dual citizen and resident of Texas who told authorities he was a regular marijuana user.
The gun restriction at issue led to a 2024 conviction of Hunter Biden, who later that year received a pardon from his father, then-President Joe Biden. Prosecutors had accused the president’s son of lying about his use of narcotics in 2018 when he purchased a Colt Cobra handgun.
‘WEEKEND BEER DRINKERS’
Upholding the restriction “would not open the door to disarming weekend beer drinkers,” Justice Department lawyer Sarah Harris, arguing for the Trump administration, told the justices.
“Unlike alcohol, illegal drugs are illegal,” Harris said. “They’re illegal because Congress deemed their use dangerous at any level, and their dangers extend beyond their mind-altering effects to the risks of the illegal drug trade.”
Hemani was charged in 2023 following an FBI raid of the home he shared with his parents in Denton County in which agents found a Glock 9mm pistol, marijuana and cocaine. Hemani said he used marijuana about every other day, though authorities did not accuse him of being intoxicated at the time of the search.
The Justice Department said in court papers that Hemani’s actions had drawn FBI attention, citing his travel to Iran and his brother’s attendance at an Iranian university. But Hemani’s indictment contained only the single charge, under a 1968 federal law called the Gun Control Act that makes possession of a firearm illegal for anyone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”
Illegal drugs are grouped by tiers, known as “schedules,” under another law called the U.S. Controlled Substances Act. Marijuana is listed as a Schedule I substance alongside heroin, ecstasy and peyote, implying it has high potential for abuse and no medical value, though Trump signed an executive order in December instructing his attorney general to quickly move ahead with reclassifying marijuana.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Harris about the extent to which a controlled substance’s link to violence should factor into how the gun restriction applies. Barrett mentioned cough medication Robitussin, sleep medication Ambien, painkiller Tylenol with codeine, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medication Adderall and the male hormone testosterone.
“I’m not a pharmacologist but none of those drugs strike me as drugs for which it is obvious that a risk of violence would ensue,” Barrett said.
“Is it your position that all of the drugs that I just mentioned would pose a risk of violence and dangerous behavior?” Barrett asked Harris.
‘A FAIRLY CAVALIER APPROACH’
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts expressed skepticism toward Hemani’s stance that his marijuana use should not fall under the law, or that courts could assess in every case the dangerousness or addictiveness of the drug at issue and an individual’s specific use.
“Your argument,” Roberts asked Erin Murphy, the lawyer arguing for Hemani, ” … why doesn’t it apply to any drug – whether it’s PCP, methamphetamine, whatever?”
“It just seems to me that takes a fairly cavalier approach to the necessary consideration of expertise and the judgments we leave to Congress and the executive branch,” Roberts said.
Hemani moved to dismiss the charge against him under this law, arguing it violated his Second Amendment rights. He also cited the stringent test the Supreme Court set in a 2022 decision requiring that gun laws be “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” in order to comport with the Second Amendment.
The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the illegal gun possession charge, ruling that “there is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence.”
Trump’s administration has urged the Supreme Court to adopt a rule allowing illegal gun possession charges against “habitual users” of unlawful drugs, noting a similarity to 19th century laws permitting authorities to temporarily disarm “habitual drunkards.”
‘THE POINT OF INTOXICATION’
Lawyers for Hemani, who is backed by the ACLU, have argued that regular marijuana users were not akin to the “habitual drunkards” of such laws. They also argued that the law’s undefined reference to an “unlawful user” is unconstitutionally vague, with lower courts left “struggling to determine how frequent, prolonged and substantial use must be.”
Murphy said the Trump administration’s argument failed to recognize the historical law’s sharp distinction separating “habitual drunkards” from “habitual drinkers.”
“Indeed, the whole point of the doctrine was to distinguish those who consumed alcohol frequently, but mostly in moderation, from those who so habitually consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication as to impair their ability to function, even in whatever moments of sobriety they may have had,” Murphy told the justices.
In a nation facing persistent firearms violence, the Supreme Court often has taken an expansive view of Second Amendment protections including in major rulings in 2008, 2010 and 2022. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.
In another Second Amendment case argued in January, the conservative justices signaled skepticism toward a Hawaii law that restricts carrying handguns on private property open to the public, like most businesses, without the owner’s permission.
(Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)
Comments