By Jordan Taylor, Law Clerk
Summary of United States v. Hemani
On June 18, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of a criminal defendant in United States v. Hemani, finding that the government had violated his Second Amendment rights when it indicted him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). This code section makes it unlawful for any person “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 802, to own a firearm.
Because Mr. Hemani admitted to law enforcement that he both owned a gun and used marijuana “about every other day,” the government sought to prosecute him as an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance and “disarm him for life.” The government argued that, like historical habitual drunkard laws, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) seeks to temporarily disarm people who “regularly use intoxicants” and pose an unusual danger to the public. In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court rejected this comparison for several reasons, finding the government “awkwardly positioned to suggest that the millions of Americans who now regularly use marijuana are categorically and unusually dangerous.”
The Supreme Court’s decision is a narrow one. It did not strike 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) down as unconstitutional. Instead, it found the application of the statute in Mr. Hemani’s case to be unconstitutional. Effectively, the Court held that regular marijuana use alone, without more specific proof that a defendant poses a danger to himself or others, is no longer a sufficient basis for prosecution or conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). In doing so, the decision could limit the federal government’s ability to disqualify certain individuals from owning firearms.
At the very least, the federal government will now be required to show more than regular marijuana use alone to prosecute someone under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). Thus, a likely outcome from this decision is that fewer individuals will be disqualified under 922(g)(3).
Potential Implications for Ohio Law
It is important to note that Hemani involved the interpretation of a federal statute, not Ohio law. However, this decision could have potential implications for Ohio law, specifically Ohio’s constitutional carry law, O.R.C. § 2923.111. This law went into effect in June 2022. It allows a “qualifying adult” to carry a “concealed handgun that is not a restricted firearm” in Ohio without a license. Under 2923.111(A)(2), a “qualifying adult” is defined as someone who is:
– Twenty-one years of age or older;
– Not legally prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) to (9) or under section 2923.13 of the Revised Code or any other Revised Code provision; and,
– Satisfies all criteria listed in divisions (D)(1)(a) to (j), (m), (p), (q), and (s) of section 2923.125 of the Revised Code.
SCOTUS effectively limited the federal government’s ability to bring prosecutions under 922(g)(3) by holding that people are not automatically restricted from owning firearms for regular marijuana use alone. As such, there could be potential implications on who is a “qualifying adult” under R.C. 2923.111, since some individuals may no longer be restricted under 922(g)(3).
There may also be confusion as to whether section (A)(4) of Ohio’s weapons under disability statute, O.R.C. § 2923.13, remains valid after Hemani. This section makes it a felony for a person who “has a drug dependency, is in danger of drug dependence, or has chronic alcoholism” to acquire, have, carry, or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance.
Again, Hemani involved a federal statute, not Ohio law. Further, Hemani did not affect the federal government’s ability to ban “addicts. . . or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm.” Thus, O.R.C. § 2923.13(A)(4) remains in effect and will likely continue to be enforced as before.
Federal Rescheduling of Certain Marijuana Products
On April 28, 2026, the Department of Justice rescheduled certain marijuana products from Schedule I to Schedule III. In Hemani, the Supreme Court relied on this change to undermine the government’s contention that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) targets those who pose an unusual danger to the public. The majority wrote that the government’s position was “at odds with its own regulatory actions,” which exhibit an increasing (though still limited) acceptance of marijuana use.
The following products have officially been moved to Schedule III:
– Marijuana,
– Marijuana extract, and,
– Naturally derived delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinols.
These products remain “subject to the import and export permit requirement” under 21 CFR 1312.30 and all other regulatory requirements of a schedule III substance.
Schedule I substances are those with a “high potential for abuse” and “no currently accepted medical use.” Schedule III substances are those with “a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II” and “a currently accepted medical use.” Schedule III substances “may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.”
What’s Next?
A firearm or drug charge may result in serious consequences and loss of liberty under federal or Ohio law. While United States v. Hemani is a major decision with regards to prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), it is vital to understand the decision’s limitations.
The decision did not directly implicate any Ohio laws or how those laws may be enforced. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) remains in effect, and a person may still be successfully prosecuted under this statute if the government can show more than casual drug use. The decision did not impact other provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), including the felon-in-possession provision under (g)(1). Finally, marijuana remains a controlled substance under federal law, although the scheduling has recently changed.
* * *
