Forgot Your Password?

New to The Nation? Subscribe

Print subscriber? Activate your online access

.nation-small__b{fill:#fff;}

The Supreme Court Has Agreed to Protect Drug Users

As long as they’re packing heat.

The statue Guardian or Authority of Law, above the west front plaza of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court continued its crusade to Mad Maxify this country’s gun laws on Thursday, but this time it did it by also making things easier for drug users. In a case called US v. Hemani, the court ruled that habitual users of illegal drugs cannot be deprived of their guns. They expanded gun rights and drug rights in the same ruling. It’s a progressive ruling, because it inhibits the ability of the state to incarcerate harmless drug users—and a MAGA ruling because it means more people will die from preventable gun violence. It’s a real double-edged assault rifle: Even when the Supreme Court does something good, it covers itself in blood.

The case arises from the government’s harassment of a man named Ali Hemani. Hemani was born in Texas, but his family is from Pakistan. That shouldn’t matter, but given that we live in a racist country, it’s almost certainly the reason Hemani and his family were investigated in 2022 for suspected “terrorism-related activities.” (I must say once again that Joe Biden should have fired then–FBI Director Chris Wray on his first day in office.) The FBI searched his house. Hemani cooperated, surrendered his licensed handgun, and actually pointed the agents to his stash of marijuana. He told the agents that he smoked pot habitually. The government found no evidence of “terrorism.”

Did federal agents apologize to Hemani for their mistake and bigotry? No, of course not. Instead, six months after the search, Hemani was charged under a statute known as USC 922(g)(3) for “knowingly possessing a gun in his home while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance.” Hemani fought the charges, arguing that the law violated his Second Amendment rights.

While most people have never heard of Ali Hemani, most people have heard of Hunter Biden. A part of this law was the basis for his prosecution; the difference is that Biden was prosecuted as a drug “addict,” while Hemani was charged as a drug “user.”

The Supreme Court decided, 9–0, to significantly limit the law, at least as it applies to drug users, though the justices were hardly unanimous in their reasoning. Under the Supreme Court’s most recent violent precedent, all 21st-century gun regulations must be able to cite some kind of historically analogous gun law that was in operation in the 18th century in order to be considered viable. It’s a profoundly stupid standard that has already proven to be intellectually unworkable, but that’s where the Republicans have put us. In defending the Hemani charges, the government argued that the historical analogues to Section 922(g)(3) were various laws that prevented “habitual drunkards” from keeping their guns. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing the majority opinion, ripped that analogy to shreds. He argued, quite rightly, that the habitual drunkard laws applied only to people who needed to be jailed or institutionalized. There is no historical precedent for taking the guns away from average American alcoholics.

That makes sense to me. Don’t expect me to believe that the rabble of farmers and yokels who turned into American revolutionaries thought, “Hey, let’s start a war against a global superpower,” while stone-cold sober. I will always believe that........

© The Nation