Gorsuch Invokes Founding Fathers' Drinking Habits in Supreme Court Scrutiny of Gun Ban for Marijuana Users
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court this week wrestled with the historical limits of the Second Amendment, scrutinizing a federal law that prohibits marijuana users from owning firearms. During oral arguments in United States v. Hemani, an unusual coalition of justices expressed deep skepticism toward the government's defense of the statute.
At the center of the debate was Justice Neil Gorsuch, who probed the Department of Justice's attempt to justify the modern restriction by comparing drug users to "habitual drunkards" subject to disarmament in the founding era. "The American Temperance Society, back in the day, said eight shots of whiskey a day only made you an occasional drunkard," Gorsuch noted wryly, adding that a habitual drunkard had to "double that."
Gorsuch then turned to the habits of the nation's founders. "John Adams took a tankard of hard cider with his breakfast every day. James Madison reportedly drank a pint of whiskey every day. Thomas Jefferson... only had three or four glasses of wine a night," he recounted. "Are they habitual drunkards who would be properly disarmed for life under your theory?" he asked the DOJ attorney, highlighting what he suggested was an untenable historical analogy.
The case involves Ali Hemani, a Texas man charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) after the FBI found he possessed a handgun while using marijuana every other day. The law gained renewed political salience following the conviction of Hunter Biden under the same statute.
Hemani's attorney argued the government committed a "category mistake" by conflating laws targeting habitual drunkards—a specific, morally condemned status—with those affecting any habitual user of a substance. "The laws to which the government points applied only to habitual drunkards, not to habitual drinkers," he contended.
The DOJ, backed by several Democratic-led states, maintained the restriction is a "modest, modern analogue" to historical precedents and poses only a "limited, inherently temporary" disability. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar's team warned that "habitual illegal drug users with firearms present unique dangers to society," particularly during police encounters.
Yet, the government's historical reasoning appeared to find a cool reception across the ideological spectrum. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned the scope of "habitual use," while Justice Brett Kavanaugh explored the line between use and addiction. The Court's decision, expected by late June, could narrowly apply to Hemani or broadly challenge the law's constitutionality, potentially reshaping firearm regulations for millions.
Reaction & Analysis:
"Gorsuch's historical lens is crucial here," said Professor Elena Vance, a constitutional historian at Georgetown University. "He's forcing the Court to ask whether modern drug laws can be grafted onto 18th-century societal judgments about alcohol and moral character. The analogy is strained, and the justices seem to recognize that."
"This is judicial activism masquerading as originalism," fired back Mark Tanner, a former federal prosecutor and advocate for stricter gun laws. "The Founders didn't have fentanyl or meth. To suggest their drinking habits are relevant to today's opioid and addiction crisis is not just absurd—it's dangerously irresponsible. The Court is playing with fire, literally."
"As a medical professional, I see the logic in temporarily restricting firearms during active substance abuse, which impairs judgment," noted Dr. Aris Thorne, a psychiatrist in Denver. "But a lifetime ban for occasional, legal cannabis use in a state where it's permitted? That lacks a public health basis and feels more like a punitive holdover from the War on Drugs."
Reporting contributed by Bill Mears.