INVESTIGATION : When the Supreme Court Humiliates Trump on the Second Amendment — For a Marijuana Smoker

Introduction: A Ruling That Fractures the Trumpist Narrative on Guns

On June 18, 2026, a crack opens in the fortress

On June 18, 2026, the United States Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision by nine votes to zero in United States v. Hemani — and that ruling carries a biting irony that American political history cannot afford to let pass without comment. The Donald Trump administration, which presents itself as the great defender of the Second Amendment, lost before the nation's highest court in a case brought by a marijuana smoker who simply wanted to keep his firearm at home.

Ali Danial Hemani, a dual American-Pakistani national residing in Texas, used cannabis several times a week. During an FBI search, agents found his Glock 9mm and roughly sixty grams of marijuana. He was immediately charged under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3), a provision of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 that prohibits any unlawful user of a controlled substance from possessing a firearm. The maximum penalty? Fifteen years in prison and a lifetime gun ban.

The paradoxical reversal: Trump defended the restriction, the Court rejected it

What makes this case particularly striking — or particularly troubling, depending on one's vantage point — is that the Trump administration had defended this 1968 law before the Supreme Court. This is a rare situation: the White House and pro-gun groups were not on the same side. Organizations such as the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation celebrated the decision that had just breached the government's position. The NRA called the ruling a "major victory for the Second Amendment."

How does one explain that a self-proclaimed defender of gun rights ended up arguing for restricting those very rights? The answer lies in the structural contradictions of Trumpism, in its logic of control through the designation of the internal enemy, and in its drive to preserve broad-spectrum tools of repression. To understand this, one must enter the Hemani case.

The Hemani Case: The Raw Facts of an Ordinary Case That Became Extraordinary

A Texan, a Glock, and sixty grams of marijuana

Ali Danial Hemani is not a violent criminal. He is not a cartel member. He does not brandish his weapon in the street. He is an ordinary Texan, an American-Pakistani citizen, who smoked cannabis a few times a week — something that, according to data cited by the ACLU, nearly half of Americans have done at some point in their lives. During an FBI search, agents found his legally purchased pistol alongside his marijuana. He was not intoxicated at the time. He had committed no other offense. He had never used this weapon in a threatening manner.

He was nonetheless charged under §922(g)(3) of the Gun Control Act of 1968 — the same law used to prosecute Hunter Biden in June 2024, before his father granted him a pardon. The difference? Hunter Biden was a self-declared addict, addicted to cocaine, having himself documented his addiction in a book. Hemani, meanwhile, was an occasional cannabis user in a country where more than forty states have legalized or decriminalized that substance. Federal law makes no such distinction. Or rather, it did not.

The Fifth Circuit had already ruled

Even before the Supreme Court took up the case, the Fifth Circuit federal court of appeals — one of the most conservative courts in the country — had ruled that the prosecution of Hemani was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. It was the Trump government itself that had asked the Supreme Court to review that adverse ruling, arguing for preservation of the 1968 law. The Supreme Court held its hearings in March 2026, and the signals sent by the justices during oral arguments already foreshadowed a stinging rebuke for the executive.

On June 18, 2026, the confirmation arrived: nine justices out of nine, from the most conservative to the most progressive, concluded that the prosecution of Hemani was incompatible with the Second Amendment. The nineteen-page opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch — a justice appointed by Trump himself during his first term. Once again, the irony is complete.

The Legal Framework: The Bruen Test and the American Historical Tradition on Arms

The 2022 jurisprudential revolution and its unintended consequences

To grasp the significance of United States v. Hemani, one must go back to the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, handed down in June 2022 by the same Supreme Court. That ruling established a new framework for assessing the constitutionality of gun laws: any restriction must now be rooted in the American historical tradition of firearm regulation, traceable to the founding era or to the 1860s at the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment. If the government cannot demonstrate that a similar law existed at the time of the Founders, the restriction is presumed unconstitutional.

This so-called "Bruen test" triggered an unprecedented wave of legal challenges. Dozens of provisions of the federal gun law were brought into question before the courts. Lower courts handed down contradictory rulings, creating legal confusion that the Supreme Court is now forced to untangle case by case. Hemani is only one episode in a long series — but a particularly symbolic one.

The "habitual drunkards" analogy: an argument that failed on every front

To justify the gun ban on drug users, the Trump administration argued that historical laws had already disarmed "habitual drunkards" in the nineteenth century. The argument seemed defensible on the surface: alcohol was a judgment-impairing substance, and states had sometimes restricted access to firearms for those who chronically abused it. Why should drugs be any different?

Justice Gorsuch rejected this analogy with surgical precision. In his opinion, he wrote that the analogy "fails at every criterion" proposed for evaluating it. Historical laws on habitual drunkards concerned individuals who were under the influence of a substance, or whose chronic dependence made carrying firearms objectively dangerous. The §922(g)(3) applied to Hemani operated radically differently: it automatically barred the firearm from the first unlawful use, regardless of the individual's actual dangerousness, without adversarial proceedings, without any need to prove a concrete risk to others. According to Gorsuch, "granting the government this kind of sweeping power to designate a group as dangerous and strip its members of a firearm would risk quickly swallowing the Second Amendment."

The Trumpist Contradiction: Defending Restriction While Claiming to Be Pro-Gun

Trump confronting his own ideological incoherence

Since his return to the White House, Donald Trump has made the Second Amendment a central identity marker of his political coalition. He presents himself as the ultimate bulwark against any attempt to disarm American citizens. His rallies are peppered with references to the inalienable right to bear arms. He has promised never to let Democrats "take your guns." The NRA supports him as never before.

And yet, in the Hemani case, it was his own Department of Justice that argued to preserve a law stripping millions of Americans of their constitutional right to a firearm — simply because they consumed cannabis, legal in more than forty states. Sarah Harris, the principal deputy solicitor general tasked with defending the government's position, attempted to justify the retention of §922(g)(3) as a reasonable public safety measure. Facing a manifestly skeptical Court, that argument collapsed.

The rift with pro-gun groups reveals a logic of control

The split between the Trump administration and the major gun-rights organizations is documented and significant. The Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, and even the NRA — bodies that typically support Trump without reservation — applauded the Supreme Court decision that had just breached the White House's position. Stephen Stamboulieh, attorney for Gun Owners of America, stated that it is "a remarkable victory, as the entire Court signaled that a federal law cannot go as far as it attempted to go."

What emerges from this divergence is that the Trump administration was defending not so much a principle as instruments of control. Section 922(g)(3) allowed, in certain cases, the neutralization of individuals by stripping them of gun rights on the basis of drug consumption — a convenient lever for law enforcement. Surrendering that tool, even in the name of the Second Amendment, represented for the executive a loss of discretionary power. That is precisely what the Court refused to endorse.

The Real Scope of the Ruling: Narrow but Structural

What the decision says — and what it does not say

Justice Gorsuch was careful to characterize the decision as "narrow." The Court did not abolish §922(g)(3) in its entirety. It did not open a general right to firearms for all drug users. The ruling applies specifically to cases like Hemani's: an occasional user of a controlled substance, presenting no evidence of dangerousness, with no violent history, lawfully carrying a firearm for a legitimate purpose such as self-defense. The law remains applicable to confirmed addicts, to persons under the influence of a drug while carrying a firearm, and to those whose substance use makes them objectively dangerous to others.

In practice, federal prosecutors will now need to provide individualized proof that the defendant poses a real danger to society — a requirement absent from §922(g)(3) as it was applied before Hemani. According to Andrew Willinger, a law professor at Georgia State University, "the opinion leaves open the possibility that the government can still prosecute unlawful drug users under the statute if it presents the right evidence." In other words, the law survives — but stripped of its automatic, categorical reach.

Implications for the background check system

Available data illustrate the extent of the problem this decision partially resolves. According to the Congressional Research Service, the national background check system for firearm purchases (NICS) denied more than 10,000 transactions in 2024 on the basis of the drug-use prohibition. Most involved marijuana consumers in states where that substance is legal at the state level but remains federally illegal. Tens of thousands of Americans found themselves in an absurd legal gray zone: their state permitted them to consume cannabis, while federal law simultaneously barred them from owning a firearm.

This paradox is not merely legal — it is also deeply political. The federal government, under bipartisan pressure, had itself initiated a process to reclassify cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act — implicitly acknowledging that the substance has legitimate medical uses and a lower abuse potential than Schedule I drugs. Gorsuch noted this in his opinion with a pointed irony: "Whatever one thinks of these developments, the federal government has not only tolerated them — it actively contributed to them." The argument was devastating to the administration's position.

Gorsuch's Opinion: A Constitutional Law Lesson Addressed to Trump

A justice appointed by Trump overturns Trump's position

Justice Neil Gorsuch is a political creation of Donald Trump. Appointed in 2017 to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, he represented one of the most symbolically loaded decisions of the first Republican term. Conservatives celebrated him as a rigorous textualist, a defender of the Constitution as written by the Founders. And it is precisely in the name of this constitutional philosophy that Gorsuch delivered to the Trump administration its defeat of June 18, 2026.

His nineteen-page opinion is a model of legal clarity. It first establishes the principle: the Second Amendment protects the right of "all Americans" to keep and bear arms for self-defense, as formulated in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). It then examines the contested provision: §922(g)(3) automatically prohibits anyone who is an "unlawful user" of any controlled substance from possessing a firearm — without distinguishing between an occasional marijuana smoker and a chronic heroin addict, without adversarial proceedings, without requiring proof of any dangerousness. Gorsuch concludes that this automatic mechanism is incompatible with the American historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The concurring opinions: Alito and Kagan together — a remarkably rare signal

The unanimity of the ruling does not obscure the important nuances revealed by the five concurring opinions filed alongside it. The most striking development is the formation of an improbable duo: Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan, representing respectively the most conservative and the most progressive wings of the Court, co-signed a concurring opinion. This type of coalition — exceedingly rare in the recent history of the Supreme Court — signals that the consensus transcends the usual ideological divides.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, another Trump nominee, had during the March 2026 oral arguments expressed concerns about the law's excessive reach, noting that it could apply to persons using prescription drugs belonging to another patient — a situation bearing no connection to any dangerousness. These positions, voiced before the final vote, left little doubt about the outcome: the Court was going to side with Hemani. The only question was the margin and the doctrinal precision.

The Bruen Precedent and the Accelerating Cascade of Challenges

A jurisprudence that is profoundly reshaping gun law

The Hemani decision is part of a jurisprudential sequence initiated by Bruen (2022) that keeps producing cascading effects. Since that landmark ruling, federal courts have been flooded with challenges targeting dozens of provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act. The federal circuits have handed down contradictory rulings, creating legal uncertainty that the Supreme Court is now compelled to resolve by accepting more gun cases than at any previous point in its recent history.

The Duke Center for Firearms Law, which closely monitors these developments, counted as many as fifteen gun-related cases pending conference before the Supreme Court as of March 2026. Among them: challenges to the gun ban for convicted felons, for undocumented immigrants, for those who possess rapid-fire weapons, and for individuals in public spaces. Hemani is not an anomaly — it is a link in a chain that is rewriting the legal landscape of firearms in the United States.

Implications for related cases: the non-violent convict

Gorsuch's reasoning in Hemani has immediate repercussions on other pending cases. The case of Garland v. Range — in which Bryan Range, convicted in 1995 for making a false statement to obtain food stamps, challenges the gun ban tied to his conviction — follows a similar logic. If the government cannot automatically strip a cannabis user of his gun rights without proving dangerousness, how can it justify the same treatment for a non-violent person convicted of a minor fraud thirty years ago?

Professor Zachary Newland stated that the Hemani decision "will breathe new life into Second Amendment criminal defense challenges under Bruen." Dozens of defense attorneys across the country have already begun identifying clients convicted under §922(g)(3) whose cases could be reopened in light of this new precedent. The Supreme Court itself will likely need to decide, in coming terms, the exact extent of its application to these related cases.

The Hypocrisy of the "War on Drugs" Confronted with the Second Amendment

A 1968 law crafted in the wake of the King and Kennedy assassinations

To understand why this law existed, one must return to the year 1968 — a traumatic year for the United States. The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in April, followed by that of Robert F. Kennedy in June, had generated massive political pressure for gun law reform. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was the legislative response to those tragedies. It established a series of prohibitions: felons, fugitives, persons committed for psychiatric reasons, drug users. The intent was not without logic.

But over fifty-eight years, American society has radically changed its relationship to drugs. More than forty states have legalized or decriminalized cannabis. The DEA initiated a reclassification process for cannabis. Half of Americans say they have consumed it at some point. The notion that an occasional marijuana smoker poses the same public safety risk as a heroin addict in withdrawal, or a violent criminal, is today legally, socially, and empirically indefensible. The Supreme Court officially acknowledged this in Hemani.

The "war on drugs" as a tool of selective disarmament

The ACLU data cited in this case reveal an additional dimension the Trump administration would prefer to ignore. With nearly half of Americans having reported consuming cannabis at some point in their lives, the §922(g)(3) provision was potentially applicable to tens of millions of people. It allowed, in theory, a federal prosecutor to strip a citizen of his gun rights for years — or permanently — on the basis of documented past use, without any violent act ever having been committed.

This mechanism of preventive disarmament based on the arbitrary designation of a class of persons is precisely what Gorsuch identified as the cardinal flaw of §922(g)(3): "granting the government such power to designate a group as dangerous and strip its members of a firearm would risk quickly swallowing the Second Amendment." This is not merely a legal argument. It is a philosophical warning about the excesses of the security state — a warning that the Trump administration, in other contexts, claims to champion itself.

The Second Amendment and the Rule of Law: A Lesson for the West

A constitutional model that corrects itself

For an outside observer — European, Canadian, Australian — the Hemani decision may seem like yet another American aberration in its neurotic relationship with firearms. This superficial reading misses the essential point. What is at stake here is something fundamentally healthy for a democratic regime: an operational separation of powers, an independent Supreme Court that says no to the executive — even when that executive largely appointed it — and constitutional law applied without apparent ideological bias.

The fact that all nine justices — on both sides — converged on this decision, that Trump nominees voted against Trump's position, that progressives and conservatives co-signed a common opinion: this is what the rule of law produces when it functions. Comparing this to Putin's Russia — where the "Constitutional Court" validates every Kremlin decision — or to Xi's China, where judges are agents of the Party, measures the chasm separating liberal democracies from their authoritarian adversaries. The West is right to defend this model.

The limits of Trumpism within a strong institutional system

Donald Trump is what he is: a catalyst of grievances, a manipulator of symbols, a man who speaks to instinct rather than reason. I consider him, as I have often written, a necessary evil — necessary because he revealed and sometimes channeled legitimate frustrations against the establishment, problematic because he routinely attacks the very institutions that protect the freedoms he claims to defend. Hemani is a perfect illustration of this tension.

Trump appointed three justices to the Supreme Court. He attempted to reinforce a federal state capable of disarming millions of Americans on a categorical basis. And it is precisely the Court he shaped that stopped him. The institutions resist. Not always, not on everything, not perfectly. But they resist. This is one of the most encouraging lessons one can draw from this case — and one of the reasons why the West, despite its deep imperfections, remains the model worth defending against the autocracies.

Reactions: The NRA, the ACLU, and Gun Control Groups in the Same Week

A ruling that disrupts the usual alliances

The Hemani decision produced a rare political phenomenon: organizations diametrically opposed on the question of guns found themselves each, in their own way, welcoming the same verdict. The NRA spoke of a "major victory for the Second Amendment." The ACLU, through its legal director Cecillia Wang, declared: "Today's unanimous 9-0 decision makes clear that the government cannot criminalize people for possessing a firearm — a core constitutional right — simply because they use marijuana." These two organizations almost never speak with one voice.

The Second Amendment Foundation emphasized that prosecutors will now need to demonstrate, beyond mere drug use, that the defendant poses an actual threat to society. Its attorney William Sack noted: "Prosecutors will need to prove more than mere drug use; they will also have to bring evidence that the defendant constitutes a danger to society due to their use of illegal substances." This paradigm shift represents a significant new evidentiary burden for prosecutors in hundreds of upcoming cases.

Gun control voices: an acceptable, even welcome, ruling

On the side of organizations favoring gun control, the reaction was nuanced but without outright hostility. Leigh Rome, an attorney at the Giffords Law Center, stated: "Today's decision still permits the government to craft and enforce reasonable, categorical restrictions on gun possession." Kris Brown, president of Brady, insisted that the Court had "reaffirmed the ability of lawmakers to restrict access to firearms for certain categories of people."

This tactical positioning by gun control groups reveals political lucidity: it was difficult to publicly defend the idea that an occasional marijuana smoker deserved fifteen years in prison and a permanent loss of gun rights. The Hemani decision, by not eliminating §922(g)(3) but circumscribing it, left them space to accept the defeat without surrendering on substance. The core of the gun control architecture remains intact.

What the Case Reveals About Trump's Drug Policy

Cannabis reclassified but still federally illegal: a political schizophrenia

One detail in Gorsuch's opinion deserves to be isolated and examined: the justice directly highlighted the internal contradiction in the government's position. The Trump administration both defended before the Supreme Court a law that strips cannabis users of their gun rights, and engaged (or allowed to continue) the process of reclassifying cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act — implicitly acknowledging that the substance has legitimate medical uses and a lower abuse potential than Schedule I drugs.

Gorsuch wrote, pointedly: "Whatever one thinks of these developments, the federal government has not only tolerated them — it actively contributed to them." This sentence is a legal rebuke of the executive's political incoherence. You cannot simultaneously reclassify cannabis to acknowledge its relative benignity and maintain that a marijuana smoker is dangerous enough to permanently forfeit his constitutional gun rights. Logic demands a choice — and the Supreme Court made it in the government's place.

Hunter Biden: the specter of a ruling that would have changed his trial

The Hemani case retrospectively casts an interesting light on the trial of Hunter Biden, convicted in June 2024 under the same §922(g)(3) — among other charges. The 2026 decision is narrow enough not to protect Biden: he was a self-declared cocaine addict, having himself documented his dependency in his memoirs, which places him in the "addict" category explicitly excluded from the Court's protection. But the irony remains complete.

The same law, used by Republicans to attempt to put Biden behind bars, has now been partially invalidated by a Court appointed in majority by Republican presidents. And this invalidation benefits an American-Pakistani national whom no one knew before 2023. Legal history is sometimes more sardonic than any political column. Hemani is not Biden, and Biden was pardoned by his father. But both cases share a common legislative ancestor — a 1968 law whose contours have just been redrawn by the Court.

The Case Seen From Outside: What the Rest of the World Thinks

Europe facing American incomprehension on guns

In Europe, in France, in Canada, in Australia — in the vast majority of liberal democracies — the Hemani decision will be read with a mixture of incomprehension and fascination. Incomprehension because the underlying debate — can one own a firearm while consuming marijuana — seems absurd through a European lens where neither is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Fascination because the institutional mechanics that produced this ruling — an independent Court defying the executive at nine unanimous votes — is precisely the type of counterweight that many democracies dream of.

The liberal democracies of Western Europe are often right to question American gun policy as a whole. The firearm mortality rate in the United States is incomparable to that of other developed countries. But criticizing American gun culture must not blind us to what a ruling like Hemani reveals that is positive: American democratic institutions, when they function, produce outcomes that respect individual freedoms and constrain executive power. It is an imperfect but operational model.

The signal sent to autocracies: institutions resist

Putin's Russia, Xi Jinping's China, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards watch with close attention for the cracks in American democracy. They do not miss an opportunity to highlight every dysfunction, every scandal, every institutional tension to feed their propaganda: "liberal democracy does not work." Hemani sends the opposite signal. An ordinary man — not powerful, not wealthy, not famous — challenged a law in court, prevailed before a federal court of appeals, watched the government bring the case to the Supreme Court, and ultimately won nine to zero before the nation's highest court.

How many Russian or Chinese citizens can hope for such a victory against the state? The answer is known. This is precisely why the West must remain the center of the world — not out of arrogance, but because it preserves mechanisms its adversaries cannot offer their own citizens. Hemani is not a great cause. But it illustrates a great principle.

Toward a Reshaping of Federal Gun and Drug Law: The Coming Battles

Congress faces the obligation to act or accept the status quo

The Hemani decision creates institutional pressure on Congress. Section 922(g)(3) has existed since 1968 and has never been seriously revised. The Supreme Court declined to eliminate it entirely — it simply said that its automatic application to all drug users is unconstitutional. It now falls to Congress to clarify the law: either by reforming it to account for the distinction between occasional users and dangerous addicts, or by leaving it as is and waiting for prosecutors to learn to adapt their charges to the new jurisprudential framework.

In a divided and dysfunctional Congress, legislating on a question touching both guns and drugs is a politically perilous exercise. Neither potential majority has an interest in opening that debate. Republicans, officially pro-Second Amendment, find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having defended the restriction. Democrats, in favor of gun control, find themselves in the position of having defended a law whose effects disproportionately fell on racial minorities prosecuted for cannabis use while white Americans consumed the same substance with impunity. Legislative gridlock is predictable.

The next cases to watch: the felon ban and other restrictions

The Duke Center for Firearms Law and constitutional jurisprudence watchers expect Hemani to serve as precedent for a wave of related challenges. Gun bans for non-violent convicts — the case of Bryan Range, convicted of a food-stamp fraud in 1995 — will very likely be reassessed in light of Gorsuch's reasoning. Bans for undocumented immigrants, for persons under domestic violence restraining orders, for those declared mentally unfit: each of these categories will need to demonstrate an anchor in the American historical tradition that the Bruen test demands.

Gun law in the United States is in full constitutional ferment. This is not the end of gun control — contrary to what some exuberant Second Amendment advocates proclaim. It is a profound and lasting transformation of the framework within which that control can legitimately be exercised. Intellectual honesty requires acknowledging: this transformation, carried by Bruen and confirmed by Hemani, produces outcomes that broadly favor individual freedoms against the repressive power of the state. And that is, fundamentally, compatible with the liberal principles the West is supposed to defend.

Conclusion: A Ruling That Forces Us to Think Trumpism Beyond the Spectacle

Trump the necessary evil, and his constitutional limits

The Hemani case compels us to look at Donald Trump as something more than mere media spectacle. By arguing to preserve a sweeping restriction on the gun rights of cannabis users, his administration revealed a logic of governance that goes beyond rhetoric: that of an executive seeking to preserve broad-spectrum tools of control over the population, even at the cost of betraying its own slogans. Trump the "defender of the Second Amendment" argued to restrict the Second Amendment. Trump the "scourge of federal bureaucracy" used a 1968 federal law to maintain automatic control over millions of citizens.

The Supreme Court — including its three nominees — said no. That institutional veto is proof that liberal democracies, even imperfect, even wounded, retain mechanisms of resistance to authoritarian drift. Trump may be a necessary evil for forcing the West to confront its own failures. But the democratic institutions that resist him are, themselves, a necessary good — and the primary reason why the West deserves to be defended.

An ordinary Texan against the federal state: the victory of a principle

Ali Hemani is not a hero from a novel. He smokes cannabis a few times a week. He had a Glock at home. He had harmed no one. But he had the luck — and the audacity — to challenge in court a law he considered unjust. And on June 18, 2026, the highest court in the United States sided with him unanimously. That is no small thing. In a country of more than 330 million people, within an imperfect judicial system, in a fractured political context, an ordinary citizen won against the federal state on a fundamental point of constitutional law. This victory transcends Ali Hemani. It belongs to all those who believe that the law, when it functions, is stronger than politics.

Sources

Primary Sources

United States Supreme Court — Official Opinion, United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234, written by Justice Gorsuch — June 18, 2026

NPR — Supreme Court sides with marijuana user who was barred from owning guns, Grady Martin and Nina Totenberg — June 18, 2026

ABC News — Supreme Court allows some marijuana users to own guns, limiting federal gun ban, Devin Dwyer — June 18, 2026

Secondary Sources

Al Jazeera — US Supreme Court eases restrictions on drug users owning firearms — June 18, 2026

NBC News — Supreme Court rules government can't restrict gun rights for casual drug use — June 18, 2026

The Trace — Supreme Court Limits Federal Gun Ban on Drug Users, Chip Brownlee — June 18, 2026

The New York Times — Supreme Court Narrows Law Banning Drug Users From Owning Guns — June 18, 2026

Duke Center for Firearms Law — SCOTUS Gun Watch 3/6/2026, analysis of oral arguments in United States v. Hemani — March 6, 2026