SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The Constitution’s prohibition on vague laws protects the separation of powers by ensuring that Congress, rather than police, prosecutors, or judges, defines what conduct is criminal. It also protects ordinary people by requiring a criminal law to be sufficiently definite to provide notice of what the law prohibits.

The statute at issue here, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) (the Statute), violates this precept because it prohibits an “unlawful user” of “any controlled substance” from possessing a firearm, without defining the quantity, frequency, or timing of the use that triggers its application. The Government disagrees. It reasons that, if this Court reads certain terms into the Statute, then that modified version of § 922(g)(3) is not unconstitutionally vague, as applied to Mr. Hemani. It argues, without relevant authority, that the Statute operates as a “temporary” disarmament that reaches only “habitual” drug users. The Government’s interpretation does not remotely reflect the Statute’s capacious reach.

Under a plain reading of § 922(g)(3), a recreational marijuana user faces all the consequences of a felony conviction, including a maximum 15-year prison sentence, for possessing a firearm in an otherwise lawful manner. That result follows even if the marijuana use occurs entirely separately from obtaining or handling a firearm.

In substance, § 922(g)(3), as applied here, punishes drug use under the guise of firearm regulation. The Statute potentially implicates tens of millions of Americans, and it fails to provide them fair notice of the consequences of their conduct.

Nor can the Statute be justified on assumptions about marijuana use and violence. § 922(g)(3) provides no standard linking drug use to dangerousness, impairment, or firearm misuse, and it offers no guidance on when a person becomes (or ceases to be) an “unlawful user.” That indeterminacy exposes ordinary people to felony liability while leaving law enforcement with unguided discretion, a dynamic that predictably amplifies existing disparities produced by inconsistent application.

In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all. Congress is the only branch that has the power to enact federal criminal laws. Allowing this prosecution to proceed under § 922(g)(3) as applied here would require this Court to supply the limiting principle Congress omitted and to decide when the Statute applies and to whom. That approach only furthers the inequitable, selective criminalization of drug use. It has little, if anything, to do with regulating firearms.

This Court should affirm.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The Constitution mandates that laws defining criminal conduct must be sufficiently clear to inform individuals of prohibited actions. This requirement upholds the separation of powers, ensuring that legislative bodies, rather than law enforcement or judicial entities, establish criminal offenses.

The specific statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), is deemed unconstitutionally vague. It prohibits an “unlawful user” of “any controlled substance” from possessing a firearm but fails to define critical terms such as the quantity, frequency, or duration of substance use that would trigger its application. While the Government suggests a narrower interpretation, limiting its scope to “habitual” users or temporary disarmament, this reading is not supported by the statute's broad language, which could apply to a recreational marijuana user facing felony charges and a lengthy prison sentence, even when drug use is entirely separate from firearm possession.

Consequently, this statute effectively criminalizes drug use under the guise of firearm regulation. It lacks specific standards, potentially impacting millions of individuals who receive inadequate notice regarding the prohibited conduct. This ambiguity exposes ordinary citizens to severe legal consequences without clear guidance.

Furthermore, the statute provides no criteria linking drug use to dangerousness, impairment, or the misuse of firearms. The absence of a clear definition for when an individual becomes or ceases to be an “unlawful user” grants excessive and unguided discretion to law enforcement. This dynamic predictably exacerbates existing disparities through inconsistent application.

A vague law is fundamentally inconsistent with the constitutional framework, which vests Congress with the sole authority to enact federal criminal statutes. For the Court to permit this prosecution would necessitate supplying the specific limiting principles that Congress omitted. Such an action would perpetuate inequitable and selective criminalization of drug use, with minimal connection to legitimate firearm regulation. Therefore, the Court should affirm the judgment.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The Constitution requires laws to be clear. This clarity protects the separation of powers by ensuring that Congress, not law enforcement or judges, defines what actions are considered criminal. It also provides individuals with fair warning about what the law prohibits. The statute in question, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), fails to meet this standard. It prohibits an "unlawful user" of "any controlled substance" from owning a firearm but does not define the amount, frequency, or specific timing of use that triggers this rule. The government's argument, suggesting the Court should add terms to make the statute apply only to "habitual" users for a "temporary" disarmament, lacks supporting legal authority and does not reflect the statute's broad wording.

Under a straightforward interpretation of § 922(g)(3), a person who uses marijuana recreationally could face a felony conviction, including a potential 15-year prison sentence, simply for possessing a firearm in an otherwise lawful way. This outcome is possible even if the marijuana use is entirely separate from when the firearm is obtained or handled. Essentially, § 922(g)(3) punishes drug use while framed as regulating firearms. The statute could apply to tens of millions of Americans and fails to give them adequate warning about the consequences of their actions.

Furthermore, the statute cannot be justified by general assumptions about marijuana use and violence. Section 922(g)(3) does not provide any standard connecting drug use to dangerousness, impairment, or the misuse of firearms. It also offers no guidance on when a person officially becomes, or stops being, an "unlawful user." This lack of definition leaves ordinary people vulnerable to felony charges and grants law enforcement officials broad, undefined power, which predictably worsens existing imbalances caused by inconsistent application of the law.

In the constitutional system, a law that is too vague cannot be upheld. Congress is the only branch with the authority to create federal criminal laws. Allowing this prosecution under § 922(g)(3) would force the Court to create the specific limitations that Congress failed to include, essentially deciding when and to whom the statute applies. This approach would only promote an unfair and selective criminalization of drug use and has little connection to the regulation of firearms. For these reasons, the Court should uphold the lower court's decision.

Summary of the Argument

The Constitution prevents laws from being too unclear. This rule helps keep the powers of government separate, making sure only Congress, not police or judges, decides what acts are crimes. It also protects people by requiring criminal laws to be specific enough so individuals know what is against the law.

The law in question, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), breaks this rule because it bans an “unlawful user” of “any controlled substance” from owning a gun. However, the law does not say how much, how often, or when someone must use a substance to be considered an “unlawful user.” The government believes that if the Court adds certain details to the law, it would not be vague for Mr. Hemani. The government suggests, without clear legal support, that the law only temporarily stops "habitual" drug users from having guns. This view does not match how broadly the law is written.

Based on a straightforward reading of § 922(g)(3), someone who uses marijuana recreationally could face a felony conviction and up to 15 years in prison for possessing a gun legally, even if their drug use had nothing to do with getting or handling the firearm. Essentially, this law punishes drug use while appearing to regulate guns. It could affect millions of Americans without giving them clear warning about what actions are illegal.

The law cannot be justified by simply assuming a link between marijuana use and violence. Section 922(g)(3) does not explain how drug use relates to someone being dangerous, impaired, or misusing a gun. It also does not define when someone starts or stops being an “unlawful user.” This lack of clear rules puts regular people at risk of serious legal trouble and gives law enforcement too much freedom to decide who to charge, which often leads to unfair and inconsistent outcomes.

Under the Constitution, a law that is too vague is not truly a law. Only Congress has the power to create federal criminal laws. Allowing this prosecution based on § 922(g)(3) would force the Court to add rules that Congress left out, deciding when and to whom the law applies. This would lead to more unfair and selective criminalization of drug use, rather than regulating firearms. This Court should affirm.

Summary

Laws must be clear. This protects the government's different parts by making sure only Congress, not police or judges, decides what is a crime. Clear laws also tell people what they can and cannot do.

A law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)) says people who use drugs cannot have guns. But it does not say how much or how often someone must use drugs. This makes the law unclear. For example, someone who uses marijuana for recreational use could go to prison for up to 15 years for a serious crime just for having a gun. This can happen even if the drug use and gun ownership are completely separate.

This law punishes people for using drugs, even though it seems to be about guns. Many millions of people could be affected by it. They do not clearly know what is allowed. The law does not show how using drugs makes someone dangerous or bad with a gun. It also does not say when a person starts or stops being an "unlawful user."

This lack of clear rules means regular people can be charged with a serious crime. It also lets police decide who to charge without enough guidance. This often leads to people being treated unfairly. A law that is not clear is not a real law. Only Congress can make federal crime laws.

If the court allows this case to continue, it would have to add rules to the law that Congress did not include. This would make it easier to unfairly punish people for using drugs. It is not truly about controlling guns. The court should agree with the earlier decision.