After the Supreme Court made a unanimous decision Thursday, ruling in favor of a man who was facing charges for possessing a firearm while regularly using marijuana, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson urged the court to reevaluate its Second Amendment test.

Currently, federal law prohibits a person from owning a firearm if they are “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” The Hill reported.

What did Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson say about reevaluating gun regulations?

Along with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Jackson is advising the court to review its 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Jackson and Sotomayor said the 2022 decision is “unworkable” and that the court may need to “retire the failed Bruen experiment.” That test, according to Jackson, is based on centuries-old evidence that may not be relevant to today’s legal questions.

“It imposes on judges the unfamiliar and difficult tasks of sifting through centuries-old evidence in order to answer ‘contested historical questions,’ and ‘applying those answers to resolve contemporary problems,'” Jackson said in her opinion, per Law & Crime.

“Given those challenges, it is unsurprising that Bruen’s test is vulnerable to inconsistent and arbitrary application, as judges draw different conclusions from the same historical evidence and reach divergent assessments of the same laws.”

Jackson added that the court may have to “consider whether to retire the failed Bruen experiment and return to an explicit assessment of Congress’ ends and means when deciding the constitutionality of firearm restrictions.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch also discussed how historical analogies are applied to modern gun laws.

“To square that expansive theory with the Second Amendment, the government invites us to draw an analogy between its present regulation and historical laws addressing habitual drunkards,” Gorsuch wrote.

“Those laws, the government contends, demonstrate a tradition of firearm regulation consistent with its effort to disarm any regular user of any controlled substance without any further showing. But the government’s analogy fails under every measure it asks us to consider.”

Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence, shared similar concerns.

“While the court was correct that a gummy at bedtime should not automatically disqualify someone from guns, that’s because of 2026 views on marijuana use, not because of 18th- or 19th-century laws that now determine the fate of all gun laws,” Lowy said in a statement, per USA Today.

“Twenty-first century gun violence can’t be solved with 18th-century solutions.”

Who is Ali Hemani?

The man at the center of the Supreme Court’s latest ruling is Ali Hemani, a U.S.-Pakistani citizen.

Hemani was indicted after police searched his home and found a Glock 9 mm pistol, along with marijuana and cocaine. Although he did not say he was under the influence of marijuana during the search, Hemani told officers he smoked regularly.

He also defended himself in court, arguing that he was protected under the framework established by the court’s 2022 Bruen decision.

The court has now unanimously agreed with Hemani, while Jackson and some of her colleagues continue to argue that the Bruen test should be reevaluated.

“The historical laws on which it relies targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways,” Gorsuch wrote.

“And faced with all these shortcomings in the government’s submission, we cannot say it has carried its conceded burden of showing its prosecution of Mr. Hemani complies with the Second Amendment.”