Uploaded June 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
In United States v. Hemani, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of an indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). In a narrow, as-applied holding, the Court held that the government’s prosecution of a marijuana user for knowingly possessing a gun in his home while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance was inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Applying Bruen and Rahimi, the Court rejected the government’s analogy to historical “habitual drunkard” laws, concluding that those laws targeted different kinds of people, served different purposes, and operated in different ways.
Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what Hemani may mean for history-and-tradition analysis and Second Amendment litigation.
Featuring:
Prof. F. Lee Francis, Associate Professor, Widener Law Commonwealth
William Bergstrom, Partner, Cooper & Kirk
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
In United States v. Hemani, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of an indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). In a narrow, as-applied holding, the Court held that the government’s prosecution of a marijuana user for knowingly possessing a gun in his home while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance was inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Applying Bruen and Rahimi, the Court rejected the government’s analogy to historical “habitual drunkard” laws, concluding that those laws targeted different kinds of people, served different purposes, and operated in different ways.
Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what Hemani may mean for history-and-tradition analysis and Second Amendment litigation.
Featuring:
Prof. F. Lee Francis, Associate Professor, Widener Law Commonwealth
William Bergstrom, Partner, Cooper & Kirk
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
![Shaped Docuseries [Ep.3] - Who Should Decide the Rules for AI?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cb27rAonjwU/mqdefault.jpg "Shaped Docuseries [Ep.3] - Who Should Decide the Rules for AI?
Shaped Docuseries [Ep.3] - Who Should Decide the Rules for AI?")
![[LIVE] From the Courthouse Steps: Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dL-iQ8dodEs/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] From the Courthouse Steps: Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook
In Trump v. Slaughter, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) statutory for-cause removal protection violates the separation of powers, overruling Humphreys Executor. The Court reasoned that subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Thus, because the FTC exercises executive power, its Commissioners must be removable by the President at will.
Yet in Trump v. Cook, the Court, 5-4, denied the government’s request to stay an injunction blocking the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The Court held that a president’s asserted “for cause” statutory basis for removing a Federal Reserve governor is judicially reviewable and that Cook was entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before removal. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts reasoned that the statute was enacted against the backdrop of the common law, and that any definition of “cause” in this context must reflect the Federal Reserve’s unique historical status and role.
Join us for a webinar breaking down both decisions, the separate opinions, and what they may mean for presidential removal power, independent agencies, the Federal Reserve, and the future of the administrative state.
Featuring:
• Adam White, Laurence H. Silberman Chair in Constitutional Governance and Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, Antonin Scalia Law School’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State
• Erin M. Hawley, Supreme Court & Appellate Litigation Chair, Lex Politica; Of Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/from-the-courthouse-steps-trump-v-slaughter-and-trump-v-cook
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.")
