Trump puts drug users' gun rights in crosshairs at Supreme Court

WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to review whether its landmark Second Amendment ruling usurped federal prohibitions on gun possession by users of illegal drugs.

Since 2022, the justices have been asked to review a slew of appeals defining the limits of NYSRPA v. Bruen , which opened the floodgates for challenges to firearm regulations. In 2024, the court ruled that domestic abusers could still be disarmed under the new historical standard. Now the justices will take on gun owners who use controlled substances.

Ali Danial Hemani was indicted after federal investigators found a Glock 19, 9mm pistol and marijuana in his family home. Two courts agreed to dismiss, however, concluding that Hemani’s charge was unconstitutional in the wake of Bruen and the domestic abuser ruling, United States v. Rahimi .

The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to review the appeal, arguing that cases like Hemani’s presented narrow circumstances where the government can restrict Second Amendment rights.

“This restriction provides a modest, modern analogue of much harsher founding-era restrictions on habitual drunkards, and so it stands solidly within our nation’s history and tradition of regulation,” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer wrote. “And habitual illegal drug users with firearms present unique dangers to society — especially because they pose a grave risk of armed, hostile encounters with police officers while impaired.”

Hemani said the facts of his case made the appeal unsuitable for the justices’ review. He says he was not intoxicated at the time when law enforcement found the Glock 19 at his home and chastised the Trump administration for divulging additional claims before the high court.

The Trump administration claimed that Hemani has connections to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and suggested he was involved with individuals with ties to terrorism. Hemani said the government had treated accusations made during a bond hearing as fact to inflame and disparage his character.

“[The government’s] thinly veiled attempt to inject prejudicial and irrelevant allegations should be disregarded,” wrote Zachary Newland, an attorney with Newland Legal representing Hemani.

While disappointed that the justices granted the government’s petition, Newland said Hemani’s team was hopeful that they would prevail on the merits.

“Mr. Hemani’s case implicates important fundamental constitutional rights that we believe will be vindicated in the end,” Newland said in an email.

Bruen’s application on federal gun prohibitions for drug users has been a topic of concern in the lower courts. In May, a Pennsylvania man told the Third Circuit that nonviolent drug convictions shouldn’t affect gun rights.

Former President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was convicted under the same law as Hemani before being pardoned by his father.

The Second Amendment won’t be the only long-running battle returning to the 2025 docket. The justices also took up a Federal Arbitration Act appeal, which the high court has reviewed multiple times over the last few years.

Under the century-old statute certain workers engaged in interstate commerce are exempt from forced arbitration. In 2022, the justices exempted airplane cargo workers from the law, and in 2024 Wonder Bread truck drivers joined them.

This term, the justices will review whether distributors of bread products are also exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act.

The Supreme Court also agreed to review a bankruptcy dispute over whether debtors who fail to disclose a civil claim can be permanently barred from pursuing that claim.

Follow @KelseyReichmann Follow @kelseyreichmann.bsky.social