Dru Stevenson, Professor of Law

  U.S. Supreme Court Paper Title: United States v. Hemani: A Narrow Holding Full of Problems Author: Dru Stevenson (Vinson & Elkins Research Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston) Repository Link: SSRN Abstract 7217658 Forthcoming In: Cato Supreme Court Review (2026) Abstract: In United States v. Hemani (2026), a unanimous Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment when applied to regular marijuana users without proof of individual dangerousness. While purporting to issue a narrow holding, Hemani inflicts severe administrative and doctrinal damage. Critically, the Court completely ignored governing ATF narrowing regulations (27 C.F.R. § 478.11) and relied on outdated empirical data while creating operational chaos for the FBI’s NICS background check system. Beyond the majority opinion, concurrences reveal deeper structural rifts: Justice Thomas questioned Congress’s Commerce Clause authority over local gun possession, while...

We like to think of the law as a set of firm, historical facts. You either committed a crime, or you didn't. You either qualify for a right, or you are disqualified. But right now, the Department of Justice is grappling with a much more "revelatory" question: Can the law predict the future? In July 2025, the DOJ proposed new rules to revive the long-dormant gun rights restoration program under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). The core of this program hinges on a single, heavy word: Dangerousness . If a person with a prior disqualifying record wants their rights restored, they must prove they are no longer "dangerous." The Rest of the Story The surprise isn't that we are asking the question—it’s how we are trying to answer it. We are moving away from mere "gut feelings" by judges and toward a sophisticated, albeit controversial, blend of clinical art and data science. In a recent piece I wrote for the Duke Second Thoughts blog (which was also cross-posted on t...