Criminal Law UpdatesCan marijuana users own guns in North Carolina after United States v. Hemani? The Supreme Court decided the gun-rights vs. marijuana case on June 18, 2026, and the answer is somewhat narrower than several headlines suggest. The Court did not legalize marijuana under federal law or announce a constitutional right for every marijuana user to possess a firearm. It also did not strike down the applicable federal statute in full. Instead, the Court held that the government could not prosecute 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) based on marijuana use alone.
That distinction controls almost everything that follows. News coverage has already produced headlines suggesting the Court erased the federal ban on gun ownership by marijuana users. That is not what happened. The Court rejected the government’s effort to apply a particularly broad reading of § 922(g)(3), the federal law that prohibits firearm possession by an unlawful user of a controlled substance, to a defendant whose only proven conduct was regular marijuana use at home.
For gun owners in North Carolina, the ruling opens new constitutional arguments while leaving substantial federal exposure in place.
What the Supreme Court Decided in Hemani
Ali Hemani is a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan who was born in Texas and worked a stable job in the Dallas area. Federal agents searched his family home in 2022 on suspicion of terrorism related activity. He cooperated, surrendered a handgun he kept in the house, pointed agents to marijuana on the property, and told them he used marijuana about every other day. No terrorism charge and no drug trafficking charge ever followed. More than six months later, relying solely on his marijuana admission, the government charged him under § 922(g)(3) with possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance. The government did not allege that he was intoxicated when he handled the gun, did not allege addiction, and did not allege that he had misused the firearm or threatened anyone.
Writing for the Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch held that the prosecution could not stand under the Second Amendment. Applying the framework from Bruen and Rahimi, the Court asked whether the government had shown that disarming Mr. Hemani was consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. It concluded that the government had not.
The government’s main analogy relied on early American laws addressing habitual drunkards. The Court rejected that analogy on every metric the government offered, and held that the failures were fatal when taken together.
First, the historical laws targeted different people. A habitual drunkard at the founding was generally someone whose drinking left him incapacitated and unable to manage his affairs, not anyone who merely drank often. By contrast, the government read 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) to disarm anyone who regularly uses any amount of any controlled substance, without proof of incapacity, addiction, dangerousness, or misuse.
Second, the historical laws served different purposes. Vagrancy, civil commitment, and surety of good behavior laws sought to encourage work, protect families from financial ruin, or guard public morals. They were not, as a rule, measures to keep firearms away from a category of unusually dangerous people.
Third, the historical laws operated differently. They usually required some process, a conviction, a probate proceeding, or an appearance before a justice of the peace, before anyone lost a liberty. Section 922(g)(3), as the government applied it, stripped the right to bear arms automatically the moment a person became an unlawful user, with no process beforehand.
The Court added further doubt as to whether the statute even serves the dangerousness purpose the government claimed. Section 922(g)(3) borrows its definition of controlled substance from the Controlled Substances Act, which schedules drugs for reasons unrelated to violence. The Court also noted that federal policy has shifted, observing that the Justice Department has curtailed marijuana enforcement, most states have legalized marijuana and/or hemp to some degree, and the federal government recently moved some marijuana products from Schedule I to Schedule III.
Why Hemani Does Not Legalize Marijuana or Guns
A reader who walks away thinking marijuana users can now own guns has misread the case.
The Court did not invalidate § 922(g)(3) on its face. It did not hold that marijuana users always enjoy a constitutional right to firearms. It did not touch federal drug law, and it did not legalize marijuana. What it did was reject one theory in one prosecution, on the specific facts before it. That is an as-applied ruling, not a facial one, and the difference matters because the statute remains valid and enforceable in other circumstances.
The opinion is unusually direct about its own limits. The Court wrote that its decision is narrow and does not reach the following questions.
| Court Did Not Decide | Why It Still Matters |
|---|---|
| Drug addiction | The addiction clause of § 922(g)(3) was not before the Court, which left open whether Congress may disarm someone addicted to drugs |
| Present intoxication | The Court did not decide whether someone may keep a firearm while currently intoxicated |
| Special-risk drugs | The Court left open whether Congress may restrict firearms for users of a particular drug after finding use of some substances may involve a special risk of misusing firearms |
| Individualized dangerousness | The Court did not decide whether prosecutors may proceed with case-specific proof that a defendant’s drug use made him dangerous |
| Felon-in-possession law | The Court did not disturb § 922(g)(1), and it signaled that provisions carrying some pre-deprivation process were not cast in doubt |
The Court’s reservations are not stray footnotes. They define the reach of the case. Future prosecutions may very well be built on exactly the facts that were missing in the matter before the Court.
North Carolina Gun Owners and Federal Law
State law and federal law do not always move together, and that gap can be at the heart of matters for North Carolina residents.
Many gun owners focus on whether state law permits firearm possession. Federal firearm prosecutions, though, are governed by federal statutes, federal regulations, and federal courts. Hemani changes the constitutional analysis for some prosecutions under § 922(g)(3). It does not erase federal authority over firearms.
It also does not make marijuana lawful where you live. Marijuana is not legal in North Carolina for recreational or comprehensive medical use. Possessing less than half an ounce is a Class 3 misdemeanor that usually carries a fine rather than jail, yet it remains a criminal offense, and larger quantities bring steeper charges. Drug Trafficking charges are actively pursued across the state, including in Durham County NC.
A narrow 2014 law allows low-THC hemp extract for intractable epilepsy, and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians has legalized cannabis on the Qualla Boundary under tribal sovereignty, but cannabis carried off tribal land falls back under North Carolina law. If you use marijuana in North Carolina, you are generally violating both state and federal law, and Hemani does not change that.
At the federal level, marijuana remains a controlled substance. The recent move of some marijuana products toward Schedule III did not legalize recreational use, and a Schedule III drug used outside a valid prescription still falls within the unlawful user language of § 922(g)(3). The Court narrowed one avenue of prosecution. It did not dismantle federal enforcement, and the opinion repeatedly notes that the government may pursue future cases on different facts, different evidence, or different legislative findings.
ATF Form 4473 After Hemani
One of the most practical questions involves ATF Form 4473, the form a buyer completes when purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer.
Hemani did not rewrite that form, did not create a federal safe harbor for marijuana users, and did not remove federal or state of North Carolina scrutiny of firearm purchases that involve controlled substances or probationary judgments. The form continues to ask whether the buyer is an unlawful user of marijuana or another controlled substance, and it warns that marijuana remains unlawful under federal law regardless of state law. A false statement on that form is a separate federal felony.
For that reason, a buyer should not assume that a successful constitutional challenge to one application of § 922(g)(3) resolves every federal firearm question tied to marijuana. The Court addressed a criminal prosecution. It did not build a regulatory framework for marijuana users who want to buy or keep firearms.
Federal Gun Charges After Hemani
The decision will generate litigation, and the opinion practically maps where future fights will go.
Prosecutors learned what was missing from the case. The government brought no proof that Mr. Hemani was intoxicated when he possessed the gun, no proof of addiction, no proof of dangerousness, and no proof of firearm misuse. The Court was careful to say it did not foreclose a prosecution backed by that kind of individualized evidence, or by proof that a particular drug always renders its users dangerous, or by new legislative findings that users of a specific drug pose a special risk with firearms.
Expect future § 922(g)(3) cases to be assembled around those very facts. Defense arguments, in turn, will press the historical-tradition analysis the Court applied here, testing whether the government can identify a relevantly similar tradition rather than a broad categorical ban. The CSA point will recur as well, since a statute that sweeps in users of any scheduled drug, for reasons often unrelated to violence, invites the same objection the Court found persuasive.
What Changed and What Stayed the Same After Hemani
| What Changed | What Stayed the Same |
|---|---|
| The Court rejected the government’s effort to disarm Mr. Hemani based on regular marijuana use alone | Marijuana remains unlawful under both federal law and North Carolina law. |
| The Court found habitual-drunkard laws too dissimilar to support the government’s theory | Section 922(g)(3) remains in force and was not struck down in full. |
| Defendants now have stronger as-applied Second Amendment arguments in some § 922(g)(3) prosecutions | The government may still prosecute with proof of dangerousness, addiction, or intoxication. |
| The ruling adds guidance on historical-tradition analysis under Bruen and Rahimi | Restrictions on convicted felons under § 922(g)(1) remain intact. |
| Future cases will likely turn on individualized facts the government lacked here | ATF Form 4473 still asks about unlawful drug use, and a false answer remains a federal crime. |
The Separate Opinions in Hemani
All nine Justices agreed that the prosecution could not stand, yet they did not travel the same road. Justice Gorsuch’s opinion drew six additional votes, and three separate writings followed.
Justice Thomas concurred and pressed a question the majority set aside. He suggested that Congress may lack the power to regulate firearm possession that is purely local, simply because the firearm once crossed state lines. Given the majority did not reach that interstate-commerce question, because the parties did not dispute it, the issue remains open for another case. Even so, Thomas signaled that future challenges to federal firearm statutes may reach beyond the Second Amendment and into the scope of congressional power.
Justice Jackson concurred, joined by Justice Sotomayor, and questioned the workability of the Bruen framework itself. In her view, asking judges to comb early American history for analogues invites inconsistent and arbitrary results, since capable judges can draw different conclusions from the same record.
Justice Alito, joined by Justice Kagan, agreed with the result but not the reasoning. He would have rested on a narrower ground, that the government failed to show a marijuana user like Mr. Hemani was incapacitated in the way the historical habitual-drunkard laws required.
The practical takeaway is that the result was unanimous while the rationale was not. Lower courts will apply a seven-Justice opinion, with several Justices already pointing toward different paths for the disputes to come.
Frequently Asked Questions About Hemani and Marijuana Gun Rights
Does Hemani mean marijuana users can legally own firearms everywhere?
Hemani rejected one application of § 922(g)(3) involving a defendant who used marijuana regularly and kept a firearm at home. The Court declined to decide broader questions about addiction, present intoxication, dangerousness, and future regulation, so the ruling does not announce a blanket right.
Did the U.S. Supreme Court strike down 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)?
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) remains an enforceable law in the United States. The United States Supreme Court held only that the statute could not be applied to Mr. Hemani on the facts presented, which makes the fact pattern and resulting opinion an “as-applied” ruling rather than a facial one.
Does Hemani legalize marijuana under federal law?
Marijuana remains a federally controlled substance, and the Second Amendment analysis in Hemani did not change that.
Is marijuana legal in North Carolina after Hemani?
Marijuana remains illegal in North Carolina for recreational and most medical use. Hemani interpreted the Second Amendment in a federal prosecution and had no effect on North Carolina drug law.
Does Hemani affect North Carolina firearm laws?
North Carolina firearm statutes remain in effect. Hemani concerns the constitutional analysis of certain federal prosecutions, not state firearm regulation.
Can federal prosecutors still bring gun cases involving drug use?
Federal gun charges involving drug use remain an option for federal prosecutors. The U.S. Supreme Court left room for prosecutions supported by individualized proof of dangerousness, evidence of addiction or intoxication, or proof that a particular drug always renders its users dangerous.
Why did the U.S. Supreme Court reject the government's historical argument against Public Drunkenness?
Historical habitual-drunkard laws targeted people whose drinking left them incapacitated, served purposes other than preventing violence, and required some process before anyone lost a liberty. The U.S. Supreme Court found those features too different from a statute that automatically disarms anyone who regularly uses any controlled substance.
The Future of Second Amendment Challenges After Hemani
United States v. Hemani likely will not be the last major decision involving firearm possession and controlled substances. The opinion leaves substantial room for future litigation, and several Justices signaled that courts will continue wrestling with questions about dangerousness, historical tradition, federal firearm restrictions, and the constitutional limits of government authority. Cases involving firearms and controlled substances remain highly fact-specific, and the law in this area continues to evolve.
For Durham residents, the decision is a reminder that federal constitutional rulings rarely fit neatly into a headline. Whether a case involves firearm possession, a drug investigation, a search warrant, or a federal criminal charge, the outcome frequently depends on the specific facts, the available evidence, and how courts apply developing constitutional precedent.
Cole Williams is from Durham County and has chosen to focus his practice on representing clients in Durham. That local focus provides a perspective grounded in the community, the courts, and the legal issues that affect Durham residents every day. If you have questions about firearm charges, controlled-substance allegations, search-and-seizure issues, or the impact of United States v. Hemani on a pending criminal case, you may reach Cole Williams Law at 919-688-2647