Supreme Court Marijuana Decision: Major Threat to Louisiana CDS Gun Laws

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 issue for Louisiana: Hemani’s Second Amendment reasoning applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment (not, as sometimes assumed, the Supremacy Clause, which governs conflicts between federal and state law rather than individual-rights limits on the states). Hemani itself struck down nothing in Louisiana — it addressed only the federal statute as applied to one defendant, and it expressly left broader categories, including felons in possession, undecided. What it supplies is persuasive reasoning a Louisiana defendant could raise in a separate, as-applied challenge to Louisiana’s drug-and-firearm statutes. 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?

La. R.S. 40:967 addresses marijuana possession. Louisiana’s actual analog to the federal statute at issue in Hemani is La. R.S. 14:95(E), which enhances the penalty for illegally carrying a weapon while unlawfully in possession of a controlled dangerous substance — and which already contains a built-in exception for possession of fourteen grams or less of marijuana. (La. R.S. 14:95.1, Louisiana’s separate felon-in-possession statute, is not the CDS-and-firearm statute and is not implicated by Hemani, since Hemani expressly declined to address felons in possession.) Hemani’s reasoning could support an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to 14:95(E) in a case involving individualized proof problems similar to Hemani’s, but it has not itself invalidated the statute, and any such challenge would need to be litigated case by case. A Baton Rouge defense attorney facing a 14:95(E) charge should consider a motion raising: (1) Hemani’s as-applied Second Amendment reasoning; (2) Fourteenth Amendment incorporation of the Second Amendment against the states (not the Supremacy Clause); and (3) the specific facts showing the charge rests on drug status alone rather than individualized dangerousness. This is an emerging, untested defense theory in Louisiana, not a settled one — expect the prosecution to argue Hemani is limited to its facts. Louisiana’s First Circuit Court of Appeal, which covers East Baton Rouge Parish, will likely be among the first courts to address these arguments as cases proceed through appeal.

Frequently Asked Questions

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.