Hemani Supreme Court Lawyers

The stakes could not be higher when a criminal case makes its way to the United States Supreme Court. Life, liberty, and the potential impact on millions of other people are all on the line when the Supreme Court considers criminal cases. The Supreme Court lawyers at Evergreen Attorneys (Zachary Newland and David Boyer) know this first-hand.

When Ali Hemani first contacted Evergreen Attorneys he was looking for hope and a new legal team. Mr. Hemani understood he needed exquisite representation to take his defense to the next level.

That’s when Ali Hemani decided to hire Evergreen Attorneys. Evergreen Attorneys has the privilege of representing Ali Hemani at the United States Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Ali Hemani. 

What Makes Federal Criminal Defense at SCOTUS Different?

Most Americans go their whole lives with little interaction with the criminal justice system. Other than an occasional traffic ticket or minor infraction, most people have no need to have knowledge of the United States Code, which has so many federal laws on the books that no one has counted the number of different crimes in those books.

Section 922(g)(3) is one of those laws that few know about but impacts millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans. We have personally spoken with federal prosecutors and defense attorneys who, while aware of the law, did not realize just how broad and overreaching it is. In short, Section 922(g)(3) makes it a federal felony for anyone who unlawfully uses a controlled substance to possess any firearm.

The federal criminal defense lawyers at Evergreen Attorneys, along with the ACLU, CLEAR Project, and Erin Murphy of Clement & Murphy, worked together to defend one person charged under this statute before the United States Supreme Court. What started out as a relatively small case turned into a major Supreme Court question of constitutional importance that could impact millions of Americans.

It is extremely rare for a criminal case to have the potential to impact so many people in the United States. Evergreen Attorneys wanted to share the facts of the case and the argument presented to the Supreme Court given the magnitude of the reach this case has.

We believe it is incredibly important to share just how far the government will go to inflame, imprison, and wrongfully prosecute one young man.

This is Ali Hemani’s story and the role Evergreen Attorneys played in leading the team at the United States Supreme Court.

I. Ali Hemani’s Story

Ali Hemani is a U.S. citizen. He was born in the United States and has lived in the Dallas/Fort Worth area all of his life. His family is from Pakistan and are devout in their religious beliefs. Ali traveled internationally a total of four times, each time to a different country.  This is all that it took for Ali and his family to be targeted by federal agents for years to come.

Ali Hemani Investigation and Indictment

Federal agents surveilled the Hemani family for at least three years based on suspicion that they support “radical Islam” to the detriment of the U.S. Their phones were tapped, their records subpoenaed, and they were literally followed by federal agents for years.

In 2022, FBI agents obtained a search warrant for the Hemani’s residence. Despite years of surveillance, agents found nothing in their search to support their allegations. However, agents did find a small amount of marijuana and a 9mm pistol registered to Ali locked in a safe. Ali cooperated with law enforcement. He gave voluntary statements and told the agents the marijuana was his and that he smoked about once every other day.

Unfortunately for Ali Hemani, use and possession of recreational marijuana is still illegal under federal law to this day.

The Northern District of Texas prosecution office declined to bring any charges against Hemani, but that did not deter the government.

Four months later, the government obtained an indictment in the Eastern District of Texas charging Hemani with a single count of possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of a controlled substance, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). A federal felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, or both, and a term of supervised release of not more than three years.

Ali Hemani is Denied Bail

At 25 years old, Ali was arrested. Although there was no requirement for it, and despite the offense being a non-presumptive one, the government moved to detain Ali throughout trial. They argued that Ali was a danger to the community and a flight risk, and that he should sit in jail while waiting for his trial.

The depth of the government’s investigation and surveillance of Hemani came to light at the detention hearing. Federal officers testified about how they had conducted surveillance of the family for years. They used a family member’s Facebook posts as a reason to deny bond. They argued that Ali’s brother attending university in Iran was proof that Ali was a dangerous criminal. They accused the family of taking “counter-surveillance” measures against law enforcement. Much of the government’s argument was irrelevant and inflammatory speculation.

As federal criminal defense lawyers, we are all too familiar with the government seeking detention in cases where it is clearly not called for. However, the arguments advanced in Hemani’s case were beyond the pale. The standard for ordering detention is that there are no conditions, or combination of conditions, that would ensure the community of the safety or the defendant’s appearance at future hearings. The “evidence” the government relied on, in our opinion, was wholly irrelevant and inflammatory.

Unfortunately, the district court found for the government. Hemani would remain in jail for the next six months while waiting for trial.

However, Hemani never did have a trial. His charges were dismissed by the district court judge after finding that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to Hemani. But that is far from the end of Hemani’s story.

Government’s Appeal to the Fifth Circuit

When the charges were dismissed Ali Hemani was finally released from custody. Despite its concession that the charge was unconstitutional under the law, the government appealed the dismissal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. This is when Zachary Newland and David Boyer first met Ali Hemani.

Evergreen Attorneys represented Hemani on direct appeal and defended the district court’s dismissal of the § 922(g)(3) charge.

The government’s opening brief on appeal conceded that Ali’s prosecution was foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent, but that did not stop the government from arguing that established case law was wrong. The government argued that all drug users are inherently dangerous. So dangerous that the Second Amendment does not protect their right to keep and bear arms. Under the government’s logic, it can disarm any person who is not a law-abiding, responsible citizen. This “responsible citizen” argument has been universally panned by the courts.

Failing the responsible citizen argument, the government next argued that the Nation’s history and tradition support disarming people like Ali. Under the Second Amendment test announced by the Supreme Court in Bruen, the government has the burden of showing that a restriction on the Second Amendment is constitutional based on the “history and tradition” of American and common law. The government failed to meet this burden on appeal. It could not point to any laws or practices from the Nation’s history that were analogous to the extraordinarily broad restrictions of 922(g)(3). The best the government could muster were 19th century laws prohibiting carrying firearms while intoxicated and laws disarming “tramps.”

Evergreen Attorneys Defends Hemani before the Fifth Circuit

In response, Hemani’s legal team at Evergreen Attorneys argued that the government utterly failed to carry its burden under Bruen by demonstrating that 922(g)(3) is rooted in the Nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation.

Regarding the government’s “responsible citizen” theory, we argued that the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Rahimi firmly foreclosed the bulk of the government’s argument on appeal. Multiple Supreme Court Justices wrote separately about this very topic:

[W]e reject the Government’s contention that Rahimi may be disarmed simply because he is not “responsible.” “Responsible” is a vague term. It is unclear what such a rule would entail. Nor does such a line derive from our case law. In Heller and Bruen, we used the term “responsible” to describe the class of ordinary citizens who undoubtedly enjoy the Second Amendment right . . . But those decisions did not define the term and said nothing about the status of citizens who were not “responsible.”

Chief Justice John Roberts (writing for the majority).

Nor do we purport to approve in advance other laws denying firearms on a categorical basis to any group of persons a legislature happens to deem, as the government puts it, “not responsible.”

Justice Gorsuch (concurring).

The Government’s proposed justification is also far too general. Nearly all firearm regulations can be cast as preventing “irresponsible” or “unfit” persons from accessing firearms. In addition, to argue that a law limiting access to firearms is justified by the fact that the regulated groups should not have access to firearms is a logical merry-go-round. As the Court has made clear, such overly broad judgments cannot suffice.

Justice Thomas (dissenting).

While Hemani’s appeal was pending, the Fifth Circuit decided a similar case involving 922(g)(3) in United States v. Connelly, 117 F.4th 269 (5th Cir. 2024). There, the Fifth Circuit held that § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional as applied to that defendant. In its published opinion, the court held:

While older laws’ bans on “carry” may be analogous to § 922(g)(3)’s ban on “possess[ion],” there is a substantial difference between an actively intoxicated person and an “unlawful user” under § 922(g)(3). The statutory term “unlawful user” captures regular marijuana users, but the temporal nexus is most generously described as vague–it does not specify how recently an individual must “use” drugs for the prohibition.

…

The analogical reasoning Bruen and Rahimi 2024 prescribed cannot stretch that far. The history and tradition before us support, at most, a ban on carrying firearms while an individual is presently under the influence. By regulating [Connelly] based on habitual or occasional drug use, § 922(g)(3) imposes a far greater burden on her Second Amendment rights than our history and tradition of firearms regulation we can support.

United States v. Connelly, 117 F.4th 269, 282 (5th Cir. 2024).

Evergreen Attorneys Win Hemani’s Appeal

The government was once again forced to concede that its prosecution of Hemani was unconstitutional under the law. It filed a motion for summary affirmance, asking the Fifth Circuit to affirm the dismissal of the charge against Hemani in its own appeal. The court of appeal granted the motion. In the vast majority of cases, this would be the end of the story. But the government was still not done with its attack on Hemani.

Government Petitions the Supreme Court

After admitting that it could not prosecute Hemani in the district court, and then again before the Fifth Circuit, the government filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. To put it simply, the government just couldn’t let Ali Hemani go free.

The government asked the highest court in the nation to overrule Connelly through Hemani’s case, and to send the case back so that the government can once again prosecute one man over a small amount of marijuana and a gun.

The government’s petition should raise alarms for the common public and those well versed in the law. For the public, one has to wonder, “Why is the government going through so much effort and spending so much money to prosecute one person for having weed and a gun like so many other Americans?” For attorneys and other legal professionals, “Why did the government file a petition in Hemani’s case asking to overturn Connelly when the government did not file the same petition in the case they actually want to overrule?” We had the same questions ourselves.

Why target Hemani and not Connelly? We do not think it is based on the law or the facts, but simply optics. It becomes obvious when looking at the government’s certiorari petition. Solicitor General John Sauer, the United States’ government top litigator, insinuated that Hemani is a terrorist, called him a drug dealer, and asserted that he is a danger to the community. Not one of these allegations were contained in the indictment against Hemani, nor was there any evidence to support this prejudicial and, frankly, racist and inflammatory rhetoric. Moreover, this rhetoric had nothing to do with the legal issue: whether 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional as applied to Hemani.

Evergreen Attorneys Lead Hemani Supreme Court Lawyers

Evergreen Attorneys filed our Brief in Opposition to the government’s certiorari petition. While the petition was pending, several other circuit courts issued rulings on 922(g)(3) cases that created a circuit split on the question of the constitutionality of the statute.

Zachary Newland and Evergreen Attorneys were Counsel of Record for the Hemani Supreme Court Lawyers. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and agreed to hear the case.

As part of preparing for oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Hemani team decided it would be best to bring in additional legal firepower.

Many attorneys would have jumped at the chance to argue their client’s case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. That would be a selfish decision when it’s based only on pride and perceived recognition.

“Ego is the Enemy”

–Ryan Holiday

Instead, Zachary Newland and David Boyer recognized early on that Ali Hemani’s absolute best chance in winning his case in front of nine justices would be to bring on one of the best Supreme Court advocates of her generation. That’s why Evergreen Attorneys reached out to Erin Murphy of Clement and Murphy to handle the oral argument at SCOTUS.

CLEAR was vital throughout this process as well. They led the charge in bringing the American Civil Liberties Union on to the team. The ACLU assembled some of the most talented attorneys in America to work on this case. The same lawyers who recently challenged the Trump birthright-citizenship executive order before SCOTUS.

We were proud to work with this incredible team of intellectually diverse attorneys in preparing Ali Hemani’s case for the U.S. Supreme Court. At Evergreen Attorneys we will always do what it takes to put our client’s needs in front of our own.

Hemani Supreme Court Team At Oral Argument

The Court heard oral argument in this case on March 2, 2026. You can listen to the oral argument here. We will not know the Justices’ decision until later this summer. However, many news outlets believe that the Court will find 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) unconstitutional in this as applied challenge. You can read more about the case and the media’s interpretation of the oral argument below:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/united-states-v-hemani-an-animated-explainer/

http://vox.com/policy/481254/supreme-court-hemani-marijuana-guns-second-amendment

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2026/02/hemani-oral-argument-preview

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-second-amendment-gun-ban-drug-users-hemani/

https://hunewsservice.com/news/supreme-court-reviews-federal-restrictions-on-drug-users-who-own-guns/

https://reason.com/2026/03/02/scotus-seems-skeptical-of-the-federal-ban-on-gun-possession-by-cannabis-consumers/

Following oral argument, we feel confident about the arguments that have been made and the questions the Justices asked. We will likely have an opinion from the Supreme Court this June.

If the Supreme Court rules in Hemani’s favor, his case will finally be over after four long years. Of course, the effects of Hemani’s prosecution will last much, much longer.

He will have litigated his case through all the federal courts, all over a small amount of marijuana. He will have spent 6 months in federal custody for an offense the courts have ruled unconstitutional. Undoubtedly, the mental, physical, and social impact of the government’s prosecution will remain with Ali for years to come.

However, it is not all for naught. As discussed below, this case has the potential to affect millions of Americans in every state and territory.

II. A Closer Look at 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3)

In order to understand the magnitude of Hemani’s case, it is important to take a closer look at the statute at issue here. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is a federal statute that prohibits numerous classes of people from possessing any type of firearm or ammunition. This case focuses on only one of those categories: 922(g)(3). That statute states:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person–

(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substance Act (21 U.S.C. 802);

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Who is an Unlawful User?

922(g)(3) is very broad. It criminalizes the possession of a firearm by any person who is an unlawful user of any controlled substance. If you are wondering what “an unlawful user of a controlled substance” means, you are not alone. The Supreme Court had the same question at oral argument, and the answer is unclear.

Nothing in the statute defines an “unlawful user.” Does one use of a controlled substance make you an unlawful user? Does smoking marijuana in a state where it is legal constitute unlawful use? Does taking your spouse’s Ambien to sleep on a flight mean you are unlawfully using a controlled substance? A plain reading of the statute would answer all of those questions, “yes.”

Marijuana is now legal is 40 states either recreationally or medicinally. At the same time, marijuana is still a Schedule I controlled substance that is illegal in all uses under federal law. Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law takes precedent over conflicting state laws. This means even if marijuana is legal in your state, the federal government can still prosecute you under federal law.

What Counts as Possession of a Firearm?

When you hear that someone possessed a firearm, you typically think that the individual had a firearm on their person. Unfortunately, the law on possession if far more broad than that. For 922(g) offenses, there are two types of possession: actual and constructive.

Actual possession means that the person has direct physical control of the firearm. Actual possession includes carrying and having the firearm on your person. Constructive possession is much broader. A person has constructive possession when they have ownership, dominion, or control over the firearm itself or the premises where the firearm is located. So, if you own a firearm that is registered in your name, you are in constructive possession. If you have access to a firearm that is owned by your spouse or family member, that is also constructive possession. You do not have to actually hold or carry a firearm to be in possession of it under 922(g).

III. Hemani’s Impact Across the Nation

Tens of millions of Americans own at least one firearm for self-defense or recreation. Many of those same Americans also consume marijuana a few days a week. According to the government, those two facts alone are sufficient to prosecute someone under 922(g)(3)–a federal felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Hemani’s case is not just about the unjust prosecution of one individual. It has the potential to affect millions of citizens across the nation.

To put this matter in perspective, every American in Colorado who legally uses marijuana under state law and owns a firearm (or lives in a house where they have access to a firearm) is in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). Like Hemani, the government can charge them with a federal felony, take away their Second Amendment rights, detain them, and ultimately convict them if 922(g)(3) is allowed to stand as it is now.

This case is about much more than the Second Amendment, and it is about much more than one person. This case is about government overreach and due process. It is extraordinary for a criminal case before the Supreme Court to be able to have the impact that Hemani’s does. We are optimistic about a good outcome for our client, as well as millions of others who may be affected by the Court’s decision on the constitutionality of 922(g)(3).

IV. Evergreen Attorneys And The Second Amendment

Zachary Newland and David Boyer were honored to lead the U.S. Supreme Court representation for Ali Hemani. This was not the first foray for the Evergreen Attorneys team into the realm of Second Amendment criminal defense.

When the landmark, Bruen decision was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court, Zachary Newland immediately recognized that it would have lasting impact for federal criminal defense nationwide. In 2023, Zachary Newland authored a cutting-edge article in the leading criminal defense magazine for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. You can view a copy of those writings here:

• https://www.nacdl.org/Article/JanFeb2023-WhatsBrewinWithBruenANewLandscapeforDef

In the meantime, Evergreen Attorneys continue to utilize the Second Amendment to defend our clients charged with crimes. We also continue to educate the public on how the Second Amendment interacts with federal criminal defense. Here are just some of the articles from our office on the subject in the past few years:

• https://evergreenattorneys.com/uncategorized/can-i-have-a-gun-colorado/
• https://evergreenattorneys.com/firearms/supreme-court-will-decide-if-habitual-drug-users-lose-their-gun-rights-under-2nd-amendment/
• https://evergreenattorneys.com/firearms/can-i-own-a-gun-if-i-use-marijuana/
• https://evergreenattorneys.com/white-collar-crime/denver-gun-crime-lawyers/
• https://evergreenattorneys.com/firearms/us-supreme-court-drug-users-guns/
• https://evergreenattorneys.com/white-collar-crime/denver-gun-rights-lawyers/

The Second Amendment will continue to be an important bulwark of individual rights in the face of aggressive government prosecutions. Our federal criminal defense team at Evergreen Attorneys is ready and willing to help you stand up and protect your rights in the face of criminal charges.

V. Evergreen Attorneys: Federal Criminal Defense At Its Best

The Hemani Supreme Court Lawyers at Evergreen Attorneys pride themselves on standing out from the crowd. Our law firm was founded solely to provide the absolute highest level of federal criminal defense in a small boutique law firm setting.

Here are some of the things that we think makes Evergreen Attorneys different from the pack:

• We only focus on federal cases and high-stakes felonies. No family law clients, no medical malpractice, no transactional lawyers, no traffic tickets.
• We only employ experienced partner-level attorneys. No fresh-faced associates right out of law school.
• We are a boutique federal white collar law firm. Every decision is tailored towards providing client-first exceptional criminal defense.
• Evergreen Attorneys handles criminal cases nationwide. We are not interested in being golfing buddies with the prosecutor.

Ali Hemani trusted Evergreen Attorneys with his life all the way to the United States Supreme Court. You deserve a lawyer with the experience to defend your federal criminal defense case from pre-investigation, to trial, to appeal, and all the way to the United States Supreme Court if necessary.

Hemani Supreme Court Lawyers is one of the proudest titles that we wear hear at Evergreen Attorneys. But the most important title we always carry is problem solvers.

Call 303-948-1489 today if you want to talk to the Hemani Supreme Court Lawyers. Alternatively, you can email us at [email protected] or fill out a contact form on our website to get in touch.