The Supreme Court on Monday heard oral arguments in a case about whether people who regularly smoke marijuana can legally own a gun.
The case, United States v. Hemani, stems from a Texas man who was charged with a felony because he acknowledged regularly using the drug while allegedly having a gun in his home.
The justices agreed to hear the case in October after the Trump administration urged them to take up the case after the Department of Justice appealed the ruling from a lower court.
Ali Danial Hemani’s lawyers were able to get his felony charge thrown out after a lower court found that the ban on the use of illegal drugs by gun owners was unconstitutional.
The FBI found a handgun, marijuana and cocaine when they searched Hemani’s home after being suspicious of his travel and alleged communication with links to Iran.
It’s the latest gun rights case the Supreme Court has heard in recent years after the 2022 landmark decision found that people have the right to carry guns for self-defense purposes and said any restrictions must be created with historical understanding. That case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, was noted a few times throughout Monday’s arguments.
Here’s what oral arguments looked like:
Government faces bipartisan pushback from justices
Sarah Harris, the principal deputy solicitor general, argued on behalf of the United States and faced some tough questions from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, with the liberal justice asking if the administration would argue that it’s OK to impose a gun ban on someone for being homeless if their argument is that it’s OK for the ban to stand for drug users.
Harris said the government does not believe homelessness is a crime, so it would not justify the same ban on guns.
Sotomayor argued that the government’s argument that the ban should stand for “habitual users” is very broad and covers varied types of repeated drug use. She also raised the question of different drugs like Ambien.
Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned Harris about whether Hemani would even qualify as an “unlawful user” and highlighted how, historically, alcohol use would have meant the country’s Founding Fathers were “habitual drunkards.”
Gorsuch also raised the question about marijuana’s varied states, like edibles or medically prescribed use, and questioned what it means for states that have legalized some forms of it.
“What do we do with the fact that marijuana is sort of illegal but sort of isn’t and that the federal government itself is conflicted on this?” he questioned.
Justice Samuel Alito, however, claimed that alcohol is historically different and can be differentiated from illegal drugs.
Harris faced tough questions from nearly all of the justices, who appeared to be leaning toward supporting Hemani due to the language of the statute and the government’s inability to define habitual use.
Hemani’s attorneys faces less tough questioning
Erin Murphy, the attorney representing Hemani, sought to highlight the government’s vagueness in her argument before the justices and the rights guaranteed to Americans under the Second Amendment.
Chief Justice John Roberts questioned Murphy about why it doesn’t apply to any drug and questioned if they hypothetically wanted gun ownership to be assessed on a “case-by-case basis and apparently on an individual-by-individual basis?” Roberts was one of the main justices who expressed skepticism with Hemani’s argument.
“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,” he said.
Alito also questioned Murphy’s argument. He posed sharp questions at the end of the allotted time for Murphy, at one point having her stumble over words as he asked, “Seriously? You think that being addicted to every single drug in the schedule renders that person a ... danger?”
Alito seemed to express concern that if they ruled in Hemani’s favor, it could open the door for individualized determinations. He, along with Justice Elena Kagan, seem to be more on the side of the government.
Kagan brought up a hypothetical about the use and effects of ayahuasca, providing a bit of a lighter moment several times throughout the questioning. She noted that she doesn’t know much about it, and assumed Murphy didn’t either, earning some laughs from people in the courtroom. Justice Amy Coney Barrett later brought it back up, saying she’s never heard of ayahuasca and asked if it’s real, again earning some laughs.
Hemani’s attorneys in their brief noted that in December, President Donald Trump rescheduled marijuana from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug.