Jackson/Sotomayor again object to the Bruen test itself, observing that what the Court does looks a lot like means-end scrutiny… I suspect we’ll see more debate about the validity and mechanics of Bruen in the yet-to-be-decided Wolford case, as agreement on the outcome muted some of that here
Alito/Kagan are focused on marijuana, saying it's an easy case bc many Americans use marijuana occasionally with implicit permission from the fed gov’t – certainly true, but difficult to see how Bruen sanctions this evolution (was a marijuana & guns ban const'l in 1968 and later became unconst'l?)
There’s language suggesting case-by-case dangerousness determinations might be needed across 922g – some courts have started to develop a test for determining if underlying felony convictions indicate dangerousness & I read Hemani as a sign that’s where SCOTUS majority may be headed in future cases
Also it's a rarely charged provision, especially compared to the fed felon gun ban, and the Court says it isn't opining on that law or any other status-based gun bans. Many states have similar laws, but the historical test might be more permissive of state regulation given post-Founding developments
It’s a narrow ruling that doesn’t settle all/most applications of this specific provision: someone under the influence of drugs when they have a gun or using drugs so frequently it affects their daily life could still be prosecuted & fed law enforcement may focus more on obtaining this evidence
A quick thread on today’s ruling in US v. Hemani, where SCOTUS held the fed ban on possessing guns as an unlawful drug user unconstitutional as applied to a regular marijuana user, 9-0 in favor of the defendant affirming CA5
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
Supreme Court opinions are coming!
And Georgia State’s experts are at the ready to help provide analysis for some of the most awaited decisions, including @andrewwillinger.bsky.social, @jvagle.me, and @espinsegall.bsky.social, in addition to me.
news.gsu.edu/2026/05/20/g...