Supreme court backs challenge to ban on gun ownership for drug users
The supreme court has sided with a marijuana user who wants to legally own a gun, the latest in a line of firearm cases from a court that has expanded gun rights.
In a 9-0 ruling, the justices sided with Ali Danial Hemani, a resident of Texas who was charged with felony gun possession after he acknowledged being a regular marijuana user. Hemani wasn’t charged with any other crimes or accused of using the weapon under the influence.
The 1968 Gun Control Act makes possession of a firearm illegal for anyone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance”.
That gun restriction led to the 2024 conviction of Hunter Biden, who later that year received a pardon from his father, then-president Joe Biden. Prosecutors had accused him of lying about his use of narcotics in 2018 when he purchased a Colt Cobra handgun.
Hemani argued that a federal law barring gun ownership from anyone who uses drugs illegally violates the constitution’s second amendment.
The decision is a loss for the Trump administration, which had defended the 1968 law despite arguing against other gun restrictions.
Key events
And that’s all the supreme court is giving us for now, folks. JD Vance is due to hold the White House press briefing at the top of the hour, where he will no doubt face questions on the details of the deal with Iran the president signed last night at Versailles – a deal which some of Trump’s allies are already seeking to pin on the vice-president.
Though that could end up being very much to Vance’s advantage. “Without question, the biggest potential political liability Vance had was the unpopularity of the war in Iran,” one person close to the White House who supports the deal told Politico last night. “So it’s fascinating to watch his biggest enemies in the GOP unwittingly inoculate him from that liability by branding him as responsible for the peace deal.”
The person went on: “[Vance] now gets to do a media tour defending the president – AKA the kingmaker of our party – from their idiotic criticism of the deal. While even his critics would acknowledge that the vice-president is a smart guy, sometimes what really matters in politics is how stupid your enemies are.”
Supreme court backs challenge to ban on gun ownership for drug users
The supreme court has sided with a marijuana user who wants to legally own a gun, the latest in a line of firearm cases from a court that has expanded gun rights.
In a 9-0 ruling, the justices sided with Ali Danial Hemani, a resident of Texas who was charged with felony gun possession after he acknowledged being a regular marijuana user. Hemani wasn’t charged with any other crimes or accused of using the weapon under the influence.
The 1968 Gun Control Act makes possession of a firearm illegal for anyone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance”.
That gun restriction led to the 2024 conviction of Hunter Biden, who later that year received a pardon from his father, then-president Joe Biden. Prosecutors had accused him of lying about his use of narcotics in 2018 when he purchased a Colt Cobra handgun.
Hemani argued that a federal law barring gun ownership from anyone who uses drugs illegally violates the constitution’s second amendment.
The decision is a loss for the Trump administration, which had defended the 1968 law despite arguing against other gun restrictions.
Supreme court releases opinions
The supreme court has started releasing opinions, so far it has issued a ruling backing a challenge to a federal law barring drug users from owning guns.
We’ll bring you any more updates here as we get them.
Indeed, this morning’s Washington Post Early Brief (paywall) asks the question: “Are we back to where we started on Iran?”
The memorandum ends the fighting, reopens the strait of Hormuz and gives Trump a chance to claim he prevented a broader economic crisis. But many of its core terms appear to return the US and Iran to roughly where they were before the conflict: with Iran’s government still in power and its long-term nuclear commitments still unresolved.
Before the war, the strait of Hormuz saw the free flow of shipping, including roughly a fifth of the world’s oil traffic. Reopening the water way essentially restores the status quo.
Iran and the US had also already engaged in negotiations – albeit brokenly – on a framework over Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting U.S. sanctions. The negotiations were in pursuit of a deal to replace the 2015 Iran nuclear deal negotiated under President Barack Obama, which Trump vehemently criticized and left during his first term.
The terms of the MOU diverge substantially from Trump’s initial threats to obliterate Iran unless it agreed to “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” back in March. And it diverged from long-standing conservative criticisms of Obama’s deal that lifted sanctions on Iran.
After Donald Trump’s signing of the 14-point agreement with Iran yesterday at the Palace of Versailles – the home of humiliating treaties – the question of what the president’s war was actually for continues to divide some Republicans and foreign policy hawks.
GOP senator Lindsey Graham, a key Trump ally, appeared to soften his view of the memorandum of understanding yesterday (from this to this) after a “very lengthy and productive” conversation with US special envoy Steve Witkoff.
“After this discussion, it is my opinion that signing the MOU will be beneficial to the United States, in as much as the strait of Hormuz will begin to open, and the hostilities with Iran will stop,” Graham wrote on X. “Whether or not the United States can reach an acceptable, verifiable deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program and other issues is yet to be determined, but I see little downside to trying.”
But a handful of other Senate Republicans were more scathing in their views.
Outgoing Louisiana senator Bill Cassidy, who Trump failed to back in a tightly fought primary last month, said that the whole affair had Ronald Reagan “rolling over in his grave”. He wrote on X:
Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future.
Before the war, the strait was open, Iran was being crushed by sanctions, and 13 service members were still alive. Now, 13 Americans are dead, families have paid billions at the pump, sanctions will be lifted, and the bombing has stopped. This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades.
Ted Cruz, who has backed the war, said the president was getting “very poor advice when it comes to this deal”.
Susan Rice, a former official in the Obama and Biden administrations was more blunt in her assessment, calling it “the biggest national security blunder in decades”, while Democratic senator Adam Schiff said it was “hard to imagine a more thorough capitulation”.
Iran gets sanctions relief, the release of frozen funds, the ability to export oil, and a $300 billion reconstruction fund. The US gets a reiteration of the vague promise Iran won’t develop a nuke.
In case you missed it, last night Donald Trump signed a 14-point agreement with Iran, claiming it delivered a “major win” for the United States – even as it made significant political and financial concessions to Iran to reopen the strait of Hormuz and prevent a “worldwide depression”.
In extraordinary remarks yesterday, Trump went from threatening Iran with a new wave of attacks to suggesting the country had basic rights to enrich uranium for civilian use, that he would not pressure Tehran to abandon its ballistic missiles programme and the US was “going to have to give back” billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets.
Those remarks, as well as the full text of the agreement – which was hailed by the Hezbollah chief, Naim Qassem, as a “great victory” – are likely to fuel anger in Israel and among hardliners in the Republican party who had urged Trump not to make a deal with Tehran.
Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, signed the agreement yesterday from Tehran. US vice-president JD Vance is also expected to sign the deal at a more formal ceremony in Geneva tomorrow.
Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said:
The agreement is a record of US failure. People will see it and judge.
Supreme court to release opinions with several high-stakes rulings to come including birthright citizenship
Hello and welcome to the US politics live blog.
The supreme court is expected to render at least one judgment today as the term is set to come to an end later this month. There are a series of cases yet to be decided that are relevant to Donald Trump, including his attempt to limit birthright citizenship and plan to remove legal protection from Haitian and Syrian immigrants.
Generally, terms last between October and late June – but the most significant cases are often left until the end of the term.
There are two main immigration-based decisions yet to be made. One pending ruling is on Trump’s desire to ban birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and those whose parents are temporary residents.
“Birthright citizenship is one of America’s most consequential commitments – the idea that where you are born, not where your parents came from, determines your belonging to this nation,” said Adam Strom, executive director and co-founder of Reimagining Migration, in The74. “For the millions of immigrant-origin children in our schools, this isn’t an abstraction. It’s the ground they stand on.”
The court also has a case that will decide if the US can terminate the Temporary Protected Status that has allowed Haitian and Syrian immigrants to live and work in the country.
Other significant cases include Trump’s wish to fire a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors.
In other news:
-
Donald Trump has signed a 14-point agreement with Iran, claiming it delivered a “major win” for the US. The Guardian’s Andrew Roth argues that the US entered war with maximalist goals and exited it with a pragmatic decision to end conflict despite political cost.
-
A teenager has died after being thrown to the ground on Wednesday when a Central Park carriage horse bolted away from its driver, police in New York have said.
-
On Wednesday, court proceedings revealed that Luigi Mangione’s legal team plans on pursuing a psychiatric defense during his upcoming Manhattan state court trial over the killing of UnitedHealthcare executive Brian Thompson.
About the Author
