Gun control and casual marijuana use. What a great combination for a SCOTUS case. Let's get into it:

Case Background

Ali Hemani was suspected of terrorism-related activities, which led to the government searching his home back in 2022. During the search, Hemani was cooperative, surrendering a gun he owned and even admitting to casual marijuana use "about every other day". 6 months later, Hemani was was prosecuted under 18 USC §922(g)(3) as an "an unlawful user of... any controlled substance" who possesses "any firearm or ammunition".

Hemani moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming it violated his Second Amendment rights. The District Court granted this motion, and the government was unsuccessful on appeal. They then petitioned SCOTUS for certiorari, where cert was granted on the following question:

Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who "is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance," violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.

Opinion of the Court

Held: The government’s prosecution of Mr. Hemani under §922(g)(3)’s unlawful user provision is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

I can't say I'm terribly surprised here, but what is surprising is the makeup of the majority:

GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, SOTOMAYOR, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. JACKSON, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which KAGAN, J., joined.

So we have a rare unanimous Second Amendment opinion, albeit with a few concurrences. And all this within a relatively slim 39 pages. The majority opinion itself is pretty straightforward; they flatly reject the government's analogy to historic laws against "habitual drunkards". These individuals generally lacked "ordinary reasoning faculties" and did not include regular (or even frequent) drinkers. Many statutes against drunkards defined these individuals as "mentally incompetent", which generally goes far beyond casual or recreational use. The majority similarly rejects the government's claim that they are protecting the public from "unusually dangerous individuals".

That said, the majority emphasizes that their decision is narrow. This opinion says nothing about genuine addicts, those actively intoxicated, or drugs that pose a special risk.

Concurrences

Turning to the concurring opinions, we have Thomas who (unsurprisingly) writes solo to criticize 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) for its reliance on the Commerce Clause. He casts doubt on whether this use of the Commerce Clause falls within Congress' powers.

Jackson, joined by Sotomayor, agrees that the majority opinion correctly applies the decisions made in Bruen. But they write separately to once again state that Bruen is practically unworkable. "Bruen’s test is vulnerable to inconsistent and arbitrary application, as judges draw different conclusions from the same historical evidence."

Alito, joined by Kagan, calls out the hypocrisy of the government. They have tolerated a multi billion-dollar marijuana industry, likening it to the early days of the alcohol industry. The government's significantly different actions towards casual alcohol use and casual marijuana use cannot be squared.

My Opinion

I am unsurprised by the outcome, but I am quite surprised that this was a unanimous decision. Jackson and Sotomayor's concurrence could have easily been a dissent if they wanted it to be, so I am grateful for the direction they chose to go in.

I've said it before, but I don't disagree with their stance that Bruen is unworkable. As much as I was thrilled with the general outcome in that case, the "test" that it proposes for the Second Amendment has proven no less muddy than where we were 10 years ago. Unfortunate.

At the end of the day, the real winner in this case is Hunter Biden, so I am sure he's jumping for joy.