The Issue
Today’s Supreme Court decision in United States v. Hemani is not just a federal law ruling. It is a constitutional earthquake with direct implications for Louisiana’s criminal statutes. In a unanimous, 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch, the Court held that the federal government cannot automatically criminalize gun ownership based on marijuana use without individualized proof of dangerousness. But here is the critical issue for Louisiana: under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, states cannot be more restrictive than federal law on Second Amendment grounds. This means Louisiana’s drug-and-firearm statutes—laws that combine controlled substance possession with gun ownership prohibitions—are now vulnerable to federal constitutional challenge. For anyone facing charges under these statutes in Louisiana state or federal court, the Hemani decision opens a new pathway to suppression and dismissal.
Background
Ali Hemani is a Texas resident charged with violating 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(3), a federal statute that bars “unlawful users of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing firearms. In 2022, federal agents searched Hemani’s home and found a Glock 19 pistol and 60 grams of marijuana. When questioned, Hemani admitted using marijuana approximately every other day. Based solely on that admission, the government indicted him. The crime carries up to 15 years in prison. Hemani moved to dismiss, arguing the law violated his Second Amendment rights under the test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which requires that gun regulations be “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” A federal trial judge and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (based in New Orleans) agreed. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the dismissal. Justice Gorsuch’s opinion rejected the government’s argument that 18th and 19th-century laws disarming “habitual drunkards” justified a modern categorical ban on gun possession by marijuana users. The Court found the historical analogy failed: the laws “targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways.” Critically, the Court emphasized that the federal government itself has “tolerated” and even “fueled” marijuana legalization across nearly half the states.
Strategic Implications
Hemani’s most immediate impact is that Section 922(g)(3) charges based solely on marijuana use cannot stand without individualized proof of dangerousness. But the ruling has a second, more consequential layer: the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and federal treaties are the “supreme law of the land,” binding on every state. A state cannot circumvent a federal constitutional rule by enacting a state statute that achieves the same result. Put simply: if the federal government cannot strip gun rights based on marijuana use alone, Louisiana cannot do so through state law either. This reasoning now threatens Louisiana statutes that combine controlled substance possession with firearm restrictions. Any Louisiana statute that accomplishes through state criminal law what Section 922(g)(3) attempted—disarming someone based on drug status without individualized dangerousness proof—is now facially vulnerable. Practitioners in Louisiana can file motions to dismiss based on Hemani and the Supremacy Clause, arguing that the statute, as applied, violates the Second Amendment. For defense attorneys, this is a significant leverage point in negotiations and litigation.
How Does This Apply in Louisiana?
Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:95.1 makes it illegal for a felon to possess a firearm. La. R.S. 40:967 addresses marijuana possession. But Louisiana also has statutes that combine drug and gun possession—for example, charges that allege unlawful possession of both a controlled substance and a firearm, often treated as compound offenses or enhanced under various statutes. Under Hemani and the Supremacy Clause, any such statute that categorically strips gun rights based on drug status (without individualized dangerousness proof) is now unconstitutional as applied. The reasoning extends beyond marijuana to any controlled substance if the statute operates categorically rather than requiring individualized proof. A Baton Rouge defense attorney can now file a motion to suppress or dismiss, citing: (1) Hemani for the Second Amendment principle; (2) the Supremacy Clause to establish that states cannot exceed federal constitutional limits; and (3) the specific text of the challenged statute to show it operates categorically. The burden shifts to the prosecution to prove individualized dangerousness, not merely drug status. This opens a new defense pathway in what were previously difficult cases. Louisiana courts will have to reckon with this, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers East Baton Rouge Parish and surrounding areas) will likely address these issues as cases proceed through appeal.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can Louisiana enforce CDS laws that ban gun possession based on drug use?
Not under the Supremacy Clause. The federal government cannot criminalize marijuana use + gun possession, and states cannot be more restrictive than federal law on Second Amendment grounds. Louisiana’s drug-and-firearm statutes may now face constitutional challenge under Hemani.
What Louisiana statutes are affected by the Hemani ruling?
La. R.S. 14:95.1 (felon in possession of firearm) and statutes criminalizing combined drug & gun possession may be vulnerable. Any statute that achieves through state law what the federal ban attempted—stripping gun rights based on drug status—faces Supremacy Clause and Second Amendment challenges.
Does the Supremacy Clause protect me in Louisiana state court?
Yes. The Supremacy Clause (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2) means that if the federal government cannot do something (restrict guns for marijuana users), Louisiana cannot either. This is a federal constitutional floor below which states cannot go.
Can I challenge my Louisiana conviction under Hemani?
Possibly, if you were convicted under a statute that criminalized combined drug use & gun possession without individualized proof of dangerousness. Consult a criminal defense attorney immediately to evaluate your conviction & appeal rights.
What should I do if I face charges under La. R.S. 14:95.1?
File a motion to dismiss based on Hemani & the Supremacy Clause. Argue that the statute, as applied to your case, violates the Second Amendment because it strips gun rights based on drug status without individualized dangerousness proof.
Conclusion
United States v. Hemani is a watershed moment for Second Amendment rights and criminal defense in Louisiana. The ruling does not just affect federal prosecutions—it threatens the constitutionality of Louisiana’s own drug-and-firearm statutes. If you face charges involving both controlled substances and firearms in Louisiana, contact a criminal defense attorney immediately. The Supremacy Clause, combined with Hemani’s Second Amendment reasoning, may now be your strongest defense.