Will federal prohibition on gun possession by unlawful drug users be the next Second Amendment issue taken up by SCOTUS?

The question in the title of this post is prompted by this new Marijuana Moment article headlined "Letting Marijuana Users Have Guns Poses ‘A Clear Danger,’ Trump’s Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court."  The article reviews much of the recent lower court Second Amendment litigation over 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits gun possession by "any person ... who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance," as well as broader legal uncertainty and policy discussions around state-legalized marijuana activity and federal firearm prohibitions. 

The article give particular attention to arguments made by both the Biden and Trump Administrations defending the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3)'s blanket criminal prohibition, and notes this recent cert petition filed by the US Solicitor General in US v. Hemani urging SCOTUS to take up this issue.  Here is a portion of the introduction in that petition:  

The Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that is essential to ordered liberty. Unjustifiable restrictions on that right present a grave threat to Americans’ most cherished freedoms.  Courts should exercise the utmost vigilance in guarding that right from legislative or regulatory infringement.  There are, however, narrow circumstances in which the government may justifiably burden that right, and Section 922(g)(3) provides such a circumstance.

In fact, there are compelling legal and historical reasons to uphold Section 922(g)(3).  By disqualifying only habitual users of illegal drugs from possessing firearms, the statute imposes a limited, inherently temporary restriction — one which the individual can remove at any time simply by ceasing his unlawful drug use.  This restriction provides a modest, modern analogue of much harsher founding-era restrictions on habitual drunkards, and so it stands solidly within our Nation’s history and tradition of regulation.  And habitual illegal drug users with firearms present unique dangers to society — especially because they pose a grave risk of armed, hostile encounters with police officers while impaired....

The Fifth Circuit’s decision invalidating Section 922(g)(3) satisfies this Court’s usual criteria for certiorari.  By restricting the statute’s application to users who were actually impaired at the time of possessing the firearm, the Fifth Circuit held an Act of Congress unconstitutional in most of its applications.  The court’s decision forms part of a three-way circuit conflict; the Seventh Circuit has upheld Section 922(g)(3), while the Eighth Circuit has struck it down, albeit on a different rationale and in a different set of applications than the Fifth Circuit.  The decision below also has significant practical consequences, given the frequency of Section 922(g) prosecutions.  Moreover, at least 32 States and territories have enacted similar laws restricting the possession of firearms by drug users and drug addicts. This Court should grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and reverse the Fifth Circuit’s judgment.

It is both notable and curious that the SG here claims that 922(g)(3) criminalizes "only habitual users of illegal drugs from possessing firearms" because the word "habitual" appears nowhere in the text of the statute actually enacted by Congress.  Perhaps the SG is suggesting that, drawing the constitutional doubt cannon, 922(g)(3) ought to be read to only be applicable to "habitual users."  But the text enacted by Congress sets forth a broad prohibition extending to "any person ... who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance," and I do not believe lower courts have required federal prosecutors to prove "habitual" use in 922(g)(3) prosecutions.  Indeed, with the SG seeking to recast 922(g)(3) to be defensible only as a ban on gun possession by "only habitual users of illegal drugs," he seems to be essentially conceding that any broader ban would violate the Second Amendment. 

In most other settings, the odds of a SCOTUS grant of review of a cert petition by the US Solicitor General seeking review of a lower court ruling declaring a federal crime unconstitutional would be a near certainty.  But, given that we have seen the Justices turn back requests from the SG's Office seeking cert in cases concerning felon firearm dispossession via 922(g)(1) prosecutions, I am disinclined to make any firm predictions with respect to the question in the title of this post.