NPR Edits Out Mention of U.S. Government in Supreme Court Decision
A recent revision to an NPR article on the Supreme Court's decision regarding marijuana use and gun ownership has removed the phrase 'the U.S.' from the initial sentence. The original article stated: 'The U.S. Supreme Court found Thursday that the government's prosecution of a marijuana user from Texas for owning guns was inconsistent with the Second Amendment.' The revised article now reads: 'The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously limited the use of a gun law used to prosecute President Biden's son Hunter.' This change is significant because it shifts the focus from the federal government's actions to the specific case of President Biden's son. The edit also adds that the case did not affect Biden, who was pardoned by his father. This change matters to readers because it highlights the distinction between the Supreme Court's decision and the potential implications for individuals, including public figures like President Biden.
Related Changes
By
Grady Martin
,
Nina Totenberg
The U.S.
Sponsor Message
Become an NPR sponsor
− Supreme Court Drew Angerer/Getty Images hide caption
The U.S.
+ Supreme Court Drew Angerer/Getty Images hide caption
The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously limited the use of a gun law used to prosecute President Biden's son Hunter.
− Supreme Court found Thursday that the government's prosecution of a marijuana user from Texas for owning guns was inconsistent with the Second Amendment.
+ The case, however, did not affect Biden, who was pardoned by his father.
− The decision was unanimous.
"The Court's decision is narrow," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote.
+ Law The Supreme Court is in its final stretch this term.
− "It does not address efforts to ban addicts or those presently intoxicated from possessing a firearm; other prophylactic laws Congress might adopt after determining that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing firearms ...
+ Here are the major cases left The case was brought by a Ali Hemani, a Texas resident who admitted to FBI agents that he used pot several times a week at the same time that he owned a legally purchased gun.
− provision disarming individuals convicted of felonies; or whether the government could bring a prosecution ...
+ He was soon indicted under the federal Gun Control Act, which makes it a crime punishable by up to 15 years in prison for an individual to use illegal drugs and to have even a legally purchased gun.
− accompanied by individualized proof that the defendant's drug use renders him a danger to himself or others, or proof that a certain drug always renders its users dangerous."
Law The Supreme Court is in its final stretch this term.
+ While it is the same law used to prosecute Hunter Biden, the Supreme Court's decision was sufficiently narrow that it may not insulate from prosecution those who, like Biden, use more serious drugs, and own a gun.
In explaining the decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch stressed that the ruling was extremely limited, in part because marijuana use has become so ubiquitous, widely accepted and is now legal to one degree or another in 40 states.
− Here are the major cases left The case stems from the arrest of Ali Hemani.
+ Indeed, as Gorsuch observed, the federal government itself has reclassified many marijuana products from a schedule one, high-potential-for-abuse category, down to a schedule 3 drug.
− In 2022, federal agents found a pistol and 60 grams of marijuana in a search of Hemani's home.
+ Therefore, said Gorsuch, the only thing before the court is the government's "ambitious theory" that could "could automatically strip Mr.
− When asked, Hemani told the agents that he uses marijuana "about every other day," according to court filings. On the basis of his drug use and gun ownership, the government convicted Hemani of violating the law at issue in this case. This is the same law that was used to convict President Joe Biden's son Hunter in 2024.
+ Hemani of his Second Amendment right to own a gun because he uses marijuana a few times week." The court's answer was basically, no you can't do that.
− Hemani challenged the law as unconstitutional, contending that it violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms and is unconstitutionally vague.
+ The decision was unanimous, though several justices filed concurring opinions.
− The law prevents "unlawful" drug users from owning guns, but as his lawyers pointed out in filings to the Supreme Court, the statute does not define "unlawful user."
"Is someone who uses a controlled substance once a year 'an unlawful user'? What about someone who uses that substance every six months, or every two weeks?" they argued. "Does it matter how much one consumes, or only how frequently one does so? The statute does not say."
To enforce the law against Hemani, they argued in court filings, "would empower the government to deprive tens of millions of Americans who pose little if any risk of firearm misuse of a fundamental constitutional right."
Adding to the issues in the case is that marijuana is to some degree legal in more than 40 states. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, more than 15% of Americans ages 12 or older used marijuana in 2024. Other surveys put the number considerably higher.
+ So, was this a big win for gun rights advocates?
− Perhaps the widespread use of marijuana is why a diverse array of organizations from across the political spectrum supported Hemani's cause.
+ "It's a good question" said Stephen Stamboulieh, a lawyer for Gun Owners of America.
− A rare combination of gun rights organizations and civil liberties advocates filed briefs urging the court to take Hemani's side. At the same time, the Trump administration's defense of the law was supported by California and some other liberal states, and Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit that advocates for gun control.
+ "I think it's a pretty significant win when we have basically the entire court saying that a federal statute can't go as far as it tried to go.
− The government contended that the law was not vague and that it only used the law against "habitual users" of illegal drugs.
+ Eric Ruben, a law professor at Southern Methodist University had a different take.
− Further, the government said that laws like this one are similar to laws from the founding, when states restricted the gun rights of "habitual drunkards." But Hemani's lawyers responded that the phrase "habitual user" is no less vague than "unlawful user."
The Supreme Court agreed with Hemani's concerns.
+ "I think the outcome of this case was based on the view that most Americans may hold, which is that weed is the new booze.
− But the court did not disregard concerns about drug users possessing guns, as Gorsuch wrote.
This decision is the latest in a series of cases stemming from the court's 2022 landmark ruling that created a new test to determine if a gun regulation is constitutional.
+ The narrowness of Thursday's ruling, plus the fact that a total of five justices filed concurring opinions that spelled out different approaches, is a reflection of the many divisions among the justices on the subject of guns and gun regulations.
− In that year, the court decided that in order for a gun regulation to be valid, the government must show that there existed "relevantly similar" regulations at the time of the founding.
+ In 2022 the court's conservative majority declared for the first time that in order for a gun law or gun regulation to be constitutional, it had to be analogous to laws at the nation's founding in the 1700s and early 1800s. Since then, however, lower court judges, and the Supreme Court itself, have struggled with how to apply such a rigid rule.
− That led to hundreds of challenges against gun regulations across the United States.