Website
Website

October 2025

Ashley Castillo, Emilyn Garcia, Valeria Cortez

By Ashley Castillo

Every so often, the Supreme Court faces a case that forces us to think about how constitutional rights intersect with public safety. The Second Amendment, which is the right to keep and bear arms, has been the subject of strong debate and legal action in recent years. At the same time, federal law prohibits certain categories of people from possessing firearms. The current moment is significant because the Supreme Court has agreed to review whether that prohibition, specifically the law barring drug users from owning guns, is consistent with the Constitution’s protection of the right to bear arms. This case raises subjective questions about the boundary between public-safety regulations and individual rights, the meaning of “habitual drug users,” how to interpret the Second Amendment considering recent precedent, and the role of federalism and state law in matters of both firearms and drug policy.

The federal statute at the heart of this dispute states that it is unlawful “for any person…who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess a firearm. The law applies regardless of whether the underlying drug use is violent or non-violent, and irrespective of whether the drug is marijuana or another controlled substance. The case, United States v. Hemani, is the second major Second Amendment case that justices have taken up this term. The Supreme Court involves Ali Hemani, a dual U.S.-Pakistani citizen living in Texas, who was found to possess a handgun along with quantities of marijuana and cocaine at his home. He was indicted under Section 922(g)(3), but a district court dismissed the formal accusation as unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal for Hermani as applied. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

Supporters of the statue argue that the government has a strong interest in protecting public safety and preventing gun violence. Regular users of illegal drugs may be more likely to act carelessly or abuse firearms. The statute is "narrow" in theory because it only applies to those who illegally use controlled substances, and the restriction may be lifted if the user stops using them. There have been previous attempts to disarm more dangerous groups of people. The government claims that this case is well-known.

Those challenging the law argue that the right to bear arms is fundamental, and blanket bans based on past drug use unfairly strip law-abiding individuals of that right. The "history and tradition" analysis reveals weak analogies: there is no clear historical precedent from early U.S. law for disarming people for no other reason than drug use. The federal prohibition still applies even though many states have legalized or decriminalized marijuana and treat users differently. That raises the issue of federalism and justice. If the Court maintains the ban, the federal government will continue to apply laws that take away gun rights of the users of certain drugs.

The ruling will make clear how courts should apply the "history and tradition" test and how the Second Amendment relates to public safety issues. Many people who have been denied the right to own firearms due to prior drug use may be able to regain their rights if the court overturns it, and numerous other gun possession laws may be challenged on the same grounds.

There are policy solutions that fall between the extremes. The Court may sustain a law that is strictly interpreted, for example, by permitting limitations only in situations where there is evidence of recent consumption and adjudication or when the person's drug consumption is connected to dangerous conduct. In addition to court-imposed therapy and procedures, lawmakers could implement progressive responses that view drug abuse as a health matter and at the same time risk the disarming of individuals who are obviously a threat. These compromise tactics are aimed at defending society from the so-called immediate threat and at the same time trying to preserve people's rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.

This case before the Supreme Court shows how a fundamental right here, the right to keep and bear arms, is balanced against public-safety considerations and regulated by law. In the end, the best legal answers will be those that are sensitive to historical precedent, responsive to evidence about risk, and calibrated so that safety measures are targeted, temporary, and proportionate, not permanent punishments for past conduct.

Works Cited

Balancing Safety and Rights: The Supreme Court Weighs Gun Ownership for Drug Users

By Emilyn García

-Unlawful Search-

The 4th amendment protects an individual against being searched without a warrant. Being searched without a warrant, without probable cause, or consent is what everyone would agree is a violation of the 4th Amendment, also known as an unlawful search. A similar situation had happened to an individual named “Jose Eduardo Coronado” who was the appellant in the case of Coronado v. State, accused of the possession of cocaine, now the legal question is, was this found under the violation of the 4th amendment or was it acquired legally?

Coronado, who was convicted for the offense of possessing cocaine, had asked the court to consider the reasonableness of the search. The Trial Court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals confirmed it. As the Court of Appeals agreed to consider the reasonableness of the search, the court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, which was led by the fact that the cocaine was found while the school originally intended to see if Coronado had been attempting to skip school.

One day, the school secretary informed the school principal, Benning, that Coronado, the appellant, would be leaving school to attend his grandfather’s funeral. Benning was suspecting the reasons why Coronado would leave the campus, he asked Coronado simple questions, asking where the vehicle was parked, to confirm Benning had called Coronado’s relatives, but they had stated that Coronado’s grandfather had not died and that Coronado had in fact driven to school. As Coronado had lied answering Benning’s questions, Benning raised suspicion; calling Randall, the school’s officer to go locate where the vehicle had been parked. The appellant’s reasons were confirmed to be false. Randall and Benning had not seen Coronado do anything illegally, but they searched him reasonably because Coronado had given untruthful responses.

During the search, Benning had patted down Coronado, had searched his locker, and had returned to the principal’s office, from which Coronado could not leave except to go to the restroom, all mainly for safety reasons. Later, as Benning, Randall, the school security guard, walked with Coronado to his car, Benning demanded that Coronado open the vehicle. Coronado had consented to search the car. While that was happening, the principal noticed Coronado trying to hide a paper bag, in which Randall discovered that it was marihuana, and Coronado got arrested. Later testifying, Coronado stated that he was compelled to conduct the initial search when the principal patted him down; additionally, he testified that he was forced to open the vehicle. Benning and Randall never mentioned Coronado’s right to refuse the search of the car.

Referencing to New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 327, 105 S.Ct. 733, 735, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720, (1985), The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to examine if it is appropriate of “exclusionary rule as a remedy for searches carried out in violation of the Fourth Amendment by public school authorities” as stated, in this case a teacher had discovered two girls smoking in school grounds and the principal demanded to look into the girl’s purse and found a package of cigarettes, The New Jersey Supreme Court held the evidence inadmissible since being of possession of cigarettes did not in fact violate the school rules, but the United States Supreme Court concluded that the search was permissible because the principal had acted reasonably when doing the search. In other words, the search was accepted because, as the teacher discovered the girls smoking, it was only reasonable to search the purse ONLY for possession-related reasons, which the court agreed.

HN4, “To balance the student’s expectation of privacy and the need for security in our schools, school officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority; however, U.S. Const. Amend. IV commands that all searches and seizures be reasonable. Therefore, the legality of a search of a public school student depends on the reasonableness, under all of the circumstances, of the search.” Under this ruling, there is a way to determine if this exception applies, and that is that HN4 would only apply IF the search of the public school was reasonable.

The Supreme Court had set two tests, HN5: “A two-test exists to determine the reasonableness of a search of a student.” This being said, the first test was “A search of a student by a teacher or school official is justified at its inception when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated, or is violating, either the law or the rules of the school.” The second rule was, “A court must determine whether the search, as actually conducted, was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. A search is permissible in its scope when the measures adopted and used are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and are excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.” With this ruling the court decided that the first prong had been met because Benning, the school principal, had reasonable grounds to suspect that the appellant was violating school rules by “skipping” but the second prong was not met. The searches that were done by the principal, officer, and school security were not reasonable because they were NOT RELATED in scope of what the principal’s main suspicion was, which was skipping. Also, including the fact that during the first search in which the principal had patted down Coronado, he did not find anything that would justify Benning's leading into the search of the appellant’s vehicle. The court had decided that “the search of the appellant's vehicle was not reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified Benning’s initial interference with the appellant, which was to determine whether the appellant was skipping school. Indeed, the search of the appellant’s vehicle was excessively intrusive in light of the infraction of attempting to skip school. Therefore, the evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and should have been suppressed pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.23(a). “

Finally, the court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court. That being said, the principal did, in fact, violate Coronado’s 4th Amendment right. Even if the search took place on school grounds, it was not related to what the principal initially wanted to confirm, which was the skipping.


Works Cited

Unlawful Search

By Valeria Cortez

On December 27, 2021, President Joe Biden signed the I Am Vanessa Guillén Act into law. This landmark legislation was named after Vanessa Guillén, a 20-year-old Hispanic American soldier stationed at Fort Hood, Texas. Her story exposed deep flaws in how the U.S. military handled sexual harassment and assault.

Vanessa Guillén went missing on April 22, 2020. Before her disappearance, she had told her family that she was being sexually harassed by fellow soldiers and by a supervisor. For months, her family searched for answers as the Army failed to take her complaints seriously. On June 30, 2020, Vanessa’s dismembered and burned remains were discovered near the Leon River, not far from Fort Hood. Investigators determined that her supervisor, Aaron Robinson, had bludgeoned her to death in an armory on base. When confronted by police, Robinson fled and fatally shot himself. His girlfriend, Cecily Aguilar, later pleaded guilty to helping dispose of Vanessa’s body and to obstructing justice by destroying digital evidence and lying to investigators.

The tragedy quickly gained national attention and sparked outrage across the country. Millions of people followed Vanessa’s story through the news and on social media, demanding answers from the Army and justice for her family. The hashtag #IAmVanessaGuillén became a rallying cry for survivors of military sexual assault who had long felt silenced or ignored. Protesters filled streets across Texas and beyond, calling for the Army to be held accountable. Vanessa’s mother, Gloria Guillén, became one of the most powerful voices in the movement, meeting with lawmakers and even speaking directly to President Biden to push for legislation that would protect service members from enduring the same suffering as her daughter.

Before this law was enacted, cases of sexual harassment and assault within the U.S. military were handled internally by the chain of command. This meant that commanding officers, rather than legal professionals, had the authority to decide whether to proceed with an investigation or prosecution. Often, commanders knew the accused personally, creating a serious conflict of interest. This system led to bias, retaliation, and a widespread lack of accountability. Many victims who came forward faced being ignored, reassigned, or ostracized for speaking out. In some cases, their military careers were permanently damaged. Reports from the Department of Defense showed that thousands of service members experienced sexual assault each year, yet only a small percentage of those cases ever resulted in criminal convictions.

Vanessa’s death became a turning point that could no longer be ignored. Her case highlighted the dangerous culture of silence that had existed in the military for decades. The I Am Vanessa Guillén Act was written to address this systemic failure. The act introduced historic reforms to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the legal framework that governs all U.S. military personnel. Its primary purpose is to ensure that cases of sexual harassment and assault are investigated independently and handled by trained prosecutors rather than the victim’s chain of command.

The law transferred prosecuting authority for sexual assault and related crimes to independent military lawyers known as special trial counsels. This change ensures that decisions about such cases are made by individuals with legal expertise rather than by commanding officers with personal or professional ties to the accused. The law also established stronger protections for victims by requiring the Department of Defense to track allegations of retaliation, report outcomes transparently, and notify victims about the progress and results of their cases. In Texas, the legislation inspired the creation of a Sexual Offense Prevention and Response Program for the Texas Military Department, which focuses on improving response training and support for survivors.

Many believe Vanessa’s death could have been prevented if her initial complaints had been handled properly. Reports revealed that Vanessa had made multiple complaints about harassment before her murder. In one instance, a supervisor allegedly made sexually explicit remarks in Spanish, and in another, a soldier approached her while she was bathing in the field and attempted to touch her. Her family’s attorney, Natalie Khawam, stated to The Texas Tribune that the Army’s investigation into Vanessa’s case was more about “damage control” than genuine accountability. The report, she said, concealed the names of individuals who had been accused of harassing Vanessa, proving that officials prioritized protecting the Army’s image rather than its soldiers. Had these reports been taken seriously, Vanessa might still be alive today.

The I Am Vanessa Guillén Act is more than just a legal reform—it is a powerful symbol of justice and courage. It serves as a promise that the voices of victims will no longer be silenced. For decades, the military has struggled to address the issue of sexual assault within its ranks, often choosing to preserve its reputation instead of protecting its people. This law represents a major shift toward transparency, fairness, and accountability. Removing decision-making power from the chain of command sends a clear message that no one, regardless of rank or position, is above the law.

The act also empowers survivors, giving them hope that their voices will be heard and that justice is possible. It acknowledges that silence has cost too many lives and careers and that the time for change is long overdue. It stands as an example of how the law can evolve in response to public demand and moral necessity.

It is heartbreaking that it took the loss of such a young life to spark this change. Vanessa Guillén was only twenty years old, having just graduated from high school, with her entire future ahead of her. Her story serves as a painful reminder of the consequences of negligence and inaction. But out of this tragedy came transformation. The I Am Vanessa Guillén Act ensures that her name will live on not as a symbol of injustice, but as one of courage, change, and hope.

Vanessa’s legacy reminds us that politicians or policymakers do not just shape the law—it is shaped by people who stand up, demand justice, and refuse to be silent. Through her family’s persistence and the public’s outrage, the nation was forced to confront a truth that had been ignored for too long. Today, because of the law bearing her name, countless service members have stronger protections and a fairer chance at justice.

The I Am Vanessa Guillén Act stands as a lasting testament to the power of one person’s story to inspire reform and save lives. It shows that even in the face of unspeakable tragedy, change is possible when the public demands it. Vanessa’s courage, her family’s determination, and the movement that followed turned heartbreak into hope and transformed pain into progress. Her story will continue to remind us that justice delayed is not justice denied—and that every voice deserves to be heard.

Works Cited

I am Vanessa Guillen

© 2025. All rights reserved.

Address

Skyline High School

Legal Studies Magnet Program

7777 Forney Rd

Dallas, Texas 72227

Contact

info@SkylineLaw.org

Att: Mr. H. Rodriguez, Lead Teacher