Uploaded March 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
In United States v. Hemani, the Supreme Court will consider whether the unlawful use of controlled substances disqualifies someone from exercising the right to keep and bear arms.
The case challenges a federal law that prohibits “unlawful users” of controlled substances — including marijuana — from possessing firearms. After lower courts struck down the statute as inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the justices agreed to step in.
The ruling could significantly shape the future of Second Amendment law and clarify how history and tradition apply to modern gun regulations.
#scotus
In United States v. Hemani, the Supreme Court will consider whether the unlawful use of controlled substances disqualifies someone from exercising the right to keep and bear arms.
The case challenges a federal law that prohibits “unlawful users” of controlled substances — including marijuana — from possessing firearms. After lower courts struck down the statute as inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the justices agreed to step in.
The ruling could significantly shape the future of Second Amendment law and clarify how history and tradition apply to modern gun regulations.
#scotus
![[LIVE] What Did the Founders Think of the President’s Pardon Power?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/TTUUcMQHoGI/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] What Did the Founders Think of the President’s Pardon Power?
In this Federalist Society America250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.
During the constitutional convention, Alexander Hamilton raised the idea of a presidential pardon power, borrowing from the British monarchy’s prerogative of mercy. Hamilton’s proposal ultimately resulted in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the president the authority to pardon individuals convicted of a federal crime.
The first presidential pardon was exercised by George Washington in 1795, when he granted amnesty to individuals who participated in Pennsylvania’s Whiskey Rebellion. Since then, there have been more than 14,000 instances of presidential pardons. From Andrew Johnson’s pardon of Jefferson Davis to Gerald Ford’s preemptive pardon of Richard Nixon to more recent instances including Joe Biden’s preemptive pardon of Hunter Biden and Donald Trump’s January 6th pardons, presidents’ use – and sometimes purported abuse – of the power has been a controversial and fiercely debated executive authority throughout our nation’s history.
Join our panel of experts as they explore the Founders’ views of the pardon power and place recent use in context with the founding generation.
Featuring:
• Paul J. Larkin, Senior Legal Fellow, Advancing American Freedom
• Andrew McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute; Contributing Editor, National Review
• James Trusty, Member, Ifrah Law
• (Moderator) Jeffrey DeSousa, Florida Office of the Attorney General
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/what-did-the-founders-think-of-the-president-s-pardon-power
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.")
![[LIVE] The National Popular Vote Compact: An End Run Around the Electoral College?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/VfUVKZVtomM/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] The National Popular Vote Compact: An End Run Around the Electoral College?
This spring, Virginia joined eighteen other states and DC in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement among participating jurisdictions to award their presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote once they collectively hold 270 electoral votes. Virginias thirteen electoral votes bring the compact to 222, leaving it 48 short of the threshold at which it would take effect.
Is participation in the compact a legitimate exercise of state power under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, or does it require congressional consent under the Compact Clause or even a constitutional amendment under Article V? Join us for a discussion of Virginia’s entry, the constitutional arguments on both sides, and what the compact could mean for the future of the Electoral College.
Featuring:
• Chad Ennis, Vice President, Honest Elections Project
• Michael Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia
• [Moderator] Hon. Allen J. Dickerson, Partner, BakerHostetler; Former Chairman, Federal Election Commission
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/the-national-popular-vote-compact-an-end-run-around-the-electoral-college
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.")
