US v. Hemani
What's at Stake
Is a federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which makes it a felony for an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance to possess a firearm, constitutional when it is used to prosecute a person who is a marijuana user and who keeps a gun safely secured at home for self-defense?
Summary
In August 2022, Ali Hemani, a marijuana user who kept a gun at home for self-defense, was charged under 922(g)(3), a federal statute that makes it a felony for anyone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess a firearm. Mr. Hemani was charged under this statute as an “unlawful user” based on his regular recreational use of marijuana. The ACLU, together with CLEAR Clinic at CUNY School of Law, Clement & Murphy, and Newland Legal, are representing Mr. Hemani to challenge this unconstitutional and unjust prosecution.
At the Supreme Court, Mr. Hemani’s defense team is advancing two constitutional arguments. First, that the statute is unconstitutionally vague because its plain text does not provide the degree of clarity required of criminal statutes, and therefore invites overbroad and discriminatory enforcement. Second, that the law violates the Second Amendment when applied to individuals like Mr. Hemani because it inflicts substantial criminal penalties on marijuana users who exercise the fundamental right to firearms possession articulated by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. Under the government’s theory, the open-ended language of 922(g)(3) gives it a blank check to strip a fundamental right from the tens of millions of Americans who consume marijuana, on pain of lengthy imprisonment. The Constitution demands more.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in Mr. Hemani’s case on March 2, 2026.