Washington, D.C. — As Hunter Biden prepares to appeal his recent conviction, his case is poised to renew a significant constitutional challenge against a federal law that prohibits drug users from possessing firearms. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Rahimi has opened avenues for this challenge, and some legal experts believe Biden may have a strong case.
Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, was convicted earlier this month in Wilmington, Delaware, of three felonies related to his 2018 purchase of a handgun while allegedly addicted to crack cocaine. His legal team had closely monitored the Rahimi case, hoping for a ruling that would undermine the gun prohibition laws under which Biden was convicted. While the Supreme Court upheld the specific provision barring individuals under domestic-violence restraining orders from having guns, it did so on the basis of a judicial finding of dangerousness, leaving other scenarios unaddressed.
The Supreme Court Ruling and Its Implications
In the Rahimi decision, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that the ruling applied only to individuals deemed by a judge to pose a danger to others. “We reject the Government’s contention that Rahimi may be disarmed simply because he is not ‘responsible,’” Roberts wrote, stressing that the term “responsible” is vague and does not warrant disarmament without a judicial finding of dangerousness.
This nuanced ruling provides a potential opening for Biden’s legal team. Eric Ruben, a professor at the SMU Dedman School of Law, noted, “I think at the end of the day, Hunter Biden may benefit from this.” Similarly, Peter Tilem, a criminal defense lawyer, pointed out, “If you look at the holding of the court, there has to be a finding by a court that the person is a danger to someone.” Tilem suggests that simply being a drug user does not necessarily make one a credible threat to the safety of others.
Legal Grounds for the Appeal
The federal law in question, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), prohibits individuals who use or are addicted to controlled substances from owning firearms. Biden’s defense team plans to argue that this provision is unconstitutional. They contend that the statute does not inherently demonstrate that drug users pose a special danger of misuse that justifies a complete ban on firearm possession.
Tilem remarked, “This is a little-used statute, and I would certainly think that he has a very strong claim.” He would advise Biden to challenge the constitutionality of the drug-users ban, especially in light of the Rahimi decision’s focus on judicial findings of dangerousness.
Political and Legal Ramifications
Hunter Biden’s appeal places him in a unique position, potentially clashing with his father’s gun-control policies. Despite this political awkwardness, Biden could become a strong Second Amendment plaintiff. He had the gun in question for less than two weeks, there is no evidence he ever fired it, and his case involved no allegations of violence. Additionally, this conviction was his first, with no prior court rulings declaring him dangerous.
Laura Edwards, a professor of American law history at Princeton University, observed, “What the court is saying is, ‘We’re going to look at this on a case-by-case basis.’” This approach suggests the justices are preparing to handle more Second Amendment cases, particularly following their 2022 decision that expanded gun rights.
Moving Forward
Hunter Biden’s sentencing is scheduled for October, after which he plans to appeal. This appeal could bring the constitutionality of the drug-users gun prohibition before the Supreme Court. Given the Court’s current trajectory, Biden’s case could serve as a crucial test for the future of federal gun-control laws. As the nation watches, this legal battle promises to have far-reaching implications for Second Amendment jurisprudence and gun legislation.
The intersection of personal rights and public safety will be at the heart of this debate, with the Supreme Court expected to play a pivotal role in defining the boundaries of gun control in America.
COMMENTS