United States v. Hemani, 608/2

Ali Hemani, a Texas-born dual U.S.-Pakistan citizen, admitted using marijuana about every other day and possessing a gun in his home. 1
The government indicted Hemani under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3) for possessing a firearm as an unlawful user of a controlled substance. 2
The district court dismissed the indictment, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted review. 3
The Court framed the Second Amendment inquiry as whether the regulated conduct is covered and, if so, whether the government shows a historical tradition of analogous firearm regulation. 4
The government relied on historical habitual-drunkard laws—vagrancy, civil-commitment, and surety statutes—as analogues for §922(g)(3). 5
The Court held the government’s prosecution was inconsistent with the Second Amendment because the historical analogues differed in who they targeted, why, and how they operated. 6
Justice Thomas concurred, Justice Jackson concurred and questioned Bruen, and Justice Alito concurred in the judgment. 7

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does §922(g)(3) violate the Second Amendment as applied to Hemani? 8	United States: habitual-drunkard laws are relevantly similar analogues.	Hemani: the statute broadly disarms marijuana users without historical support.	Yes; the prosecution is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. 9
Are habitual-drunkard laws relevant historical analogues? 10	United States: they show a tradition of disarming regular intoxicant users.	Hemani: those laws targeted incapacitated drunkards, not mere users.	No; the analogues differ materially in purpose and scope. 11
Does §922(g)(3) operate like historical laws by temporary disarmament with process? 12	United States: it is similar because it temporarily disarms dangerous users.	Hemani: it disarms automatically, without pre-deprivation process.	No; §922(g)(3) imposes automatic disarmament without comparable process. 13

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms 14)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2022) (government must show firearm regulation is consistent with historical tradition 15)
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (U.S. 2024) (historical analogues need not be twins; analogy turns on relevant similarity 16)
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (U.S. 1803) (constitutional limits on legislative power must be enforced 17)
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (U.S. 1995) (Commerce Clause limits reach of federal gun-possession laws 18)
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2000) (Congress may not regulate noneconomic violent crime based solely on aggregate commerce effects 19)
Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1977) (statutory minimal-nexus holding under §922(g) was not a constitutional ruling 20)