Last June in United States v. Hemani, the Supreme Court unanimously held that Americans cannot be stripped of their Second Amendment rights or prosecuted for illegal gun possession simply because they use marijuana or other federally prohibited drugs. That decision complicated prosecutions under 18 USC 922(g)(3), which makes it a felony for an "unlawful user" of "any controlled substance" to receive or possess a firearm. It also opened the door to relief for people who had been previously convicted of violating that law based on nothing more than the statutory elements.
Hemani did not rule out Section 922(g)(3) charges when the government presents additional evidence that a defendant poses a danger to public safety. But prior to Hemani, prosecutors typically did not do that. The question now is how federal courts should deal with such prior convictions: Should they simply be vacated, or should the government get another chance to offer evidence that would meet Hemani's new requirements? A pending Supreme Court petition from Alexander Ledvina, an Iowa cannabis consumer who received a four-year prison sentence after he was convicted of violating Section 922(g)(3) in 2023, highlights a circuit split on that crucial question.
