For those of us who follow decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS,) we know that unanimous SCOTUS rulings are becoming incredibly rare. For those of us who pay particular attention to 2nd Amendment (2A) cases at SCOTUS, we know unanimous decisions are nearly unheard of. DC v. Heller (2008) was a 5-4 vote at SCOTUS. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) was 5-4. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen (2022) was 6-3.
The incredibly rare unanimous Pro-2A ruling was US v. Hemani (2026.) US comes first because the US Government was appealing the case to SCOTUS. A US District Court in Texas ruled that this violated Hemani’s 2A Rights. The government appealed to the 5th US Circuit Court, who ruled in favor of Hemani, stating that in light of the “text, history, and tradition” standard from Bruen 2022, Hemani’s 2A Rights were violated. How we got to the unanimous SCOTUS decision is a bit a winding path.
Ali Hemani is an American Citizen who lives in Texas. In 2022 the FBI came with a search warrant based on he and his family being suspected of supporting terrorism (not a very sympathetic defendant, but more to come.) Hemani was very cooperative, showing the FBI Agents, he had a legally possessed handgun, and marijuana (an admitted occasional user.)
There were no charges based on the support of terrorism. Federal Prosecutors did seek to send Hemani to federal prison for 15 years since (as an abuser of a controlled substance) he was in possession of a firearm.
Full disclosure: I don’t partake in the herb. I stay off the grass. I avoid the left-handed cigarettes. I don’t smoke the doobies. I could keep going but I won’t.
This case isn’t about marijuana. It’s about over-reach of the Federal Government. It’s also about how important the SCOTUS decisions in favor of the 2A have been. The opinion in this case was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justice Gorsuch does an incredible job of laying out the pertinent facts that lead to the ruling.
Reading Justice Gorsuch’s opinion, I have to think it was a really bad day for the government lawyers during the oral arguments. Bruen (2022) gave us the standard of “text, history, and tradition” in limiting the presumptive right to keep and bear arms. Another SCOTUS case, US v. Rahimi (2024) gave us that history and tradition didn’t require an exact analog, but had to be “relevantly similar.” Rahimi was an incredibly violent and dangerous individual who should’ve been in the middle of a 20-year prison sentence instead of being out walking around.
“The burden that the government sets for itself in this case is a considerable one” are the words of Justice Gorsuch. The government had to show how someone who wasn’t a danger to himself or to anyone else; was not a drug trafficker; never misused the handgun while under the influence of marijuana… should spend 15 years in prison and be disarmed for life for having a handgun in the house while being an occasional marijuana user.
First, the government argued that laws concerning vagrants, civil commitments to institutions, and habitual drunkards were “relevantly similar” to Mr. Hemani’s situation of facing 15 years in prison and being disarmed for life. To put it mildly, the government failed miserably. US v. Hemani can be read here.
This case was very narrow in scope. It references marijuana recently changing DEA Schedule I (high abuse potential/no accepted medical use; includes heroin and LSD) to DEA Schedule III (Moderate to low abuse potential/has accepted medical use.) The case applies to one individual: Ali Hemani. It does not change anything concerning addicts losing 2A Rights.
There were three concurring opinions from other Justices. Justices Alito and Kagan joined in one of the opinions. Justice Alito was a George W Bush appointee and is considered to be one of the most conservative Justices (arguably 2nd only to Justice Clarance Thomas.) Justice Kagan was appointed by Barack Obama and while a brilliant legal scholar, she is no friend to the 2A or 2A supporters. This opinion followed very closely with Justice Gorsuch’s opinion. IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) so I’ll paraphrase in IANAL/from Indiana-speak. “Government lawyers: comparing ice cream to Tuesday is not relevantly similar. Go home and stop wasting the taxpayers’ money.”
Justices Brown-Jackson and Sotomayor had a “concurring” opinion. Concurring is in “quotes” since it was titled a concurring opinion but mostly covered their dislike for the NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022) decision. They also expressed disdain for researching historical precedents (again IANAL, but I’m pretty sure researching historical precedents is their job.) Despite a concurring opinion in a unanimous Pro-2A decision, these two Justices have shown themselves to be enemies of the 2A.
Last but certainly not least, Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion. Justice Thomas took a very different approach in his opinion. His first two sentences showed the direction of the next eight pages.
I agree with the Court that (18 USC) §922(g)(3) violates the
Second Amendment as applied to respondent Ali Hemani,
and I join its opinion in full. I write separately to
call attention to another issue: As a matter of both original meaning
and this Court’s precedents, §922(g)(3) appears to exceed
Con-gress’s enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce.
When Congress’ “enumerated powers” are mentioned, this brings up the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution (it makes me think of it in my IANAL way of thinking.)
- 9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
- 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
What is commonly called “the Commerce Clause” is Article I (Legislative Branch,) Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution which states, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” This is a long way from “regulate anything that ever crossed a State line” which is where we are now.
Over the eight pages of concurrence, Justice Thomas lays out through numerous SCOTUS cases how things have been misinterpreted to allow the federal government near unlimited power to regulate all things via the commerce clause.
The first time SCOTUS held a law to be unconstitutional was in Marbury v. Madison (1803.) In his closing paragraph, Justice Thomas quotes the words of (then) Chief Justice John Marshall in the Marbury decision: Under our Constitution, “[t]he powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.”
As 2A supporters we have to fight on many fronts. No matter your views are on marijuana, US v. Hemani (2026) was not about marijuana. It was about overreach of the federal government. Next month another win for 2A supporters from SCOTUS will be discussed: Wolford v. Lopez (2026.)
Kelly Myers – Co-Director Government Affairs
About the Author
