"Hemani is the first time since the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen upended Second Amendment jurisprudence that the court has addressed the constitutionality of laws that prosecute individuals for owning guns solely based upon a category that the gun owner falls into. In United States v. Rahimi, which the court decided in 2024, the defendant had been deemed dangerous by a family court judge, based on allegations made by his former girlfriend."
"Which raises the question: Can the government, without any individual determination as to the habits or dangerousness of the individual, ban all unlawful drug users from owning guns? And how does this categorical frame fit with the test articulated in Bruen, which demands that every modern gun regulation have its roots in a historical analogue, a similar law, dating back to the founding (or thereabouts)?"
"While we don't yet know how Hemani will be decided, members of both the conservative and liberal factions of the court seemed united against the broadness of the category that the law had created. Too many people could be prosecuted and disarmed for things that, the justices seemed"
The Supreme Court heard arguments in United States v. Hemani, challenging a federal statute criminalizing gun possession by unlawful drug users. The case follows the Court's Bruen decision, which requires modern gun regulations to have historical analogues from the founding era. The 5th Circuit previously struck down Hemani's conviction, ruling the law violated his Second Amendment rights as a marijuana user. Unlike United States v. Rahimi, which involved individual dangerousness determinations, Hemani's law applies categorically to all unlawful drug users regardless of personal circumstances. Both conservative and liberal justices expressed concern about the law's breadth and its compatibility with Bruen's historical test.
Read at Slate Magazine
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]