scotus · 2026-06-18
author: unavailable · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Interpretation-only case: no authored CASE context or instance blocks recorded in this snapshot.
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
And faced with all these short- comings in the government’s submission, we cannot say it has carried its conceded burden of showing its prosecution of Mr. Hemani complies with the Second Amendment.
United States v. Hemani — citation unavailable · scotus · 2026 (18usc922: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
And faced with all these short- comings in the government’s submission, we cannot say it has carried its conceded burden of showing its prosecution of Mr. Hemani complies with the Second Amendment.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_cl.jsonl#/cl/10876933; Unicode character offsets [49204:49401] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ddc3c7badaca411744cfb09e0eefa48fc95674d3448c1f5c6032881f91d5e9f2.Hemani (June 18, 2026), majority pp. 18-19, rejects automatically disarming this regular marijuana user based solely on that status under the government's historical-analogy theory. It reserves addicts, present intoxication, individualized dangerousness proof, particular dangerous drugs, and section 922(g)(1). This is an as-applied constitutional limitation, not textual deletion of status.g3 or a universal dangerousness element. It does not defeat liability independently established under a different prohibited status.