An attorney who achieved a Supreme Court win regarding gun regulations for marijuana users discussed the implications of the ruling with the Daily Caller News Foundation on Thursday. He suggested that this decision might signal how the justices view future cases related to New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled 9-0 in Hemani v. United States, stating that regular marijuana users cannot be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). This ruling, which was penned by U.S. Judge Neil Gorsuch, is based on Second Amendment considerations. Zachary Newland, the lawyer for Ali Hemani, pointed out that this ruling seemed to counter a previous weakening of Bruen in the case of Zacky Rahimi, where the court upheld a firearm conviction tied to a domestic violence restraining order.
“After Bruen, and especially after Rahimi, there was a sense among trial lawyers that maybe the courts were stepping back from the tenets of Bruen,” Newland noted. “This case, I believe, has revitalized the Bruen concept, showing that the majority is still invested in it, even if some previous decisions suggested otherwise.”
The Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, which also included Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, invalidated New York’s “good cause” requirement for pistol permits back in June 2022. The opinion highlighted historical gun laws and discussions during the ratification of the 14th Amendment as reasons why New York’s concealed carry regulations were unconstitutional. Interestingly, Justice Thomas dissented in the Rahimi ruling, where a conviction involving a firearm and a restraining order was upheld.
Newland explained that his office took on Hemani’s case after an initial favorable ruling in a lower court. He believed that the law under which Hemani was charged, prohibiting the use of controlled substances like marijuana, could be challenged on Second Amendment grounds.
“I knew of this law because of the case against Hunter Biden,” Newland shared. “While I wasn’t involved in that case’s defense, I felt it was open to challenge. I think the law is too broad and lacks sufficient legal protections for individuals before their Second Amendment rights can be stripped, possibly leading to lengthy federal sentences.”
Biden had been found guilty of illegally possessing a firearm while under the influence and was later pardoned by then-President Joe Biden. In Hemani’s case, Newland indicated that how they approached the legal challenge was crucial.
“We’re going with an as-applied challenge, meaning we’re asserting that this law, as it pertains to my client, is unlawful, rather than claiming it’s invalid in all scenarios,” he clarified. “It’s more about directing the issue toward the government, rather than putting it on ourselves.”
Newland also mentioned that the Hemani case presented “better facts” than the Rahimi case. He indicated that in Rahimi, the government made a broader argument, which may have contributed to a less favorable outcome.
Reports indicate that Rahimi was involved in multiple shooting incidents over a span of months. His conviction was ultimately overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, citing Second Amendment grounds, before the Supreme Court reinstated the conviction. Newland expressed his eagerness to take on future cases in the Supreme Court.
“I strongly support individual freedom and tend to be skeptical of government authority, so I’m eager to engage in these matters,” he stated. “It’s essential work, though I feel not enough people take it seriously. Regardless of my views on current laws, I firmly believe in the Constitution’s written word.”
