By John Kruzel and Andrew Chung
WASHINGTON, March 2 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court appeared divided on Monday over the legality of a federal law defended by President Donald Trump’s administration barring certain users of illegal drugs including marijuana from owning guns in another case testing the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”
During arguments in the case, the justices seemed torn over whether the 1968 ban at issue has the historical pedigree needed under a legal test they created in 2022 and whether Congress meant for a marijuana user like the defendant in this litigation to be disarmed.
Some justices – conservatives and liberals alike – indicated concern that the law may sweep too broadly, though others seemed content deferring to the judgment of Congress.
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.
The Trump administration appealed 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.
Justice Department lawyer Sarah Harris, arguing for the administration, sought to persuade the justices that upholding the restriction “would not open the door to disarming weekend beer drinkers.”
“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.”
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch asked Harris about a hypothetical defendant.
“What if he took one gummy bear with a medical prescription in Colorado?” Gorsuch asked, referring to marijuana-infused gummies.
“Let’s say he had one to help him sleep every other day,” Gorsuch said. “Disarm him for life?”
‘CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES’
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 the 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.”
Under another law called the U.S. Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is listed as having a high potential for abuse and no medical value. Trump signed an executive order in December instructing his attorney general to quickly move ahead with reclassifying marijuana.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked about whether Congress had determined that drugs listed in the Controlled Substances Act were linked to violence.
While questioning Harris, Barrett mentioned the 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.
“I think it’s clear when you look at the Controlled Substances Act, dangerous is not necessarily the primary reason why or even a reason why all of these drugs land on the list,” Barrett added.
‘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 argued that the charge against him violated the Second Amendment. He also cited the Supreme Court’s test 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 administration urged the justices 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.”
Lawyers for Hemani, who is backed by the ACLU, argued that regular marijuana users are not comparable to “habitual drunkards” referenced in such laws. Murphy said the administration’s argument failed to recognize the sharp distinction in the 19th century curbs between “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 said.
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.
(Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)
Comments