{"id":223,"date":"2026-06-22T14:17:28","date_gmt":"2026-06-22T14:17:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=223"},"modified":"2026-06-22T14:17:28","modified_gmt":"2026-06-22T14:17:28","slug":"a-victory-for-the-defendant-in-united-states-v-hemani-but-little-guidance-for-the-lower-courts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=223","title":{"rendered":"A victory for the defendant in United States v. Hemani, but little guidance for the lower courts"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Please note that SCOTUS Outside Opinions constitute the views of outside contributors and do not\u00a0necessarily\u00a0reflect the opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.<\/em><\/p>\n

Read more Hemani: proving the reason, not just naming it<\/a><\/p>\n

Last week, the Supreme Court decided the case of United States v. Hemani<\/em> in the defendant\u2019s favor. The government had prosecuted Ali Hemani under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 922(g)(3) \u2013 which makes it a felony for an \u201cunlawful user\u201d of a controlled substance to possess a firearm \u2013 on the ground that he smoked marijuana about every other day. The court deemed that prosecution inconsistent with the Second Amendment. The outcome for Hemani is the correct one. But the most revealing thing about the court\u2019s opinion may be what it never admits \u2013 that the real issue with Hemani\u2019s prosecution was a statute so vague that no one can say whom it covers.<\/p>\n

Section 922(g)(3) bans firearm possession by an \u201cunlawful user\u201d of drugs. That phrase is vague. It doesn\u2019t clearly draw a line between who along the spectrum of drug users is covered and who is not. Does it cover someone who tried a drug once? The weekend smoker? Someone who used every other day, like Hemani? Or only someone who is high while actually possessing a gun? The text is silent.<\/p>\n

The unclear statute was front and center in this case. The in Hemani\u2019s brief was that the \u201cunlawful user\u201d prong is because it doesn\u2019t adequately define the line between lawful and unlawful conduct. Vague language in a criminal statute undermines due process and the separation of powers by effectively delegating the legislative task of crime definition to prosecutors, thereby inviting arbitrary enforcement and failing to provide sufficient notice.<\/p>\n

In an supporting Hemani, and in a December column for SCOTUSblog, I pressed a gentler version of the same point, arguing not for invalidation, but for a narrowing construction that would save the statute by confining it to its clear core \u2013 those impaired while armed \u2013 through a rule of what I have called \u201cmajor-questions lenity\u201d or \u201cvagueness avoidance.\u201d That approach would have allowed the court to resolve the case on a statutory ground without ever reaching the Second Amendment question.<\/p>\n

The vagueness concerns were not lost on the justices. At , the statutory phrase \u201cunlawful user\u201d drew sustained fire from several members of the court, most pointedly from Justice Neil Gorsuch (who authored the majority opinion in Hemani<\/em>). He told the government it \u201chas not been able to define what a user is\u201d \u2013 noting that it had previously taken the position that the term \u201cunlawful user\u201d covered anyone who used a drug \u201cin the past year,\u201d then argued that \u201ca pattern\u201d was needed, and then advocated for a confusing \u201chabitual [use]\u201d gloss that \u201cconflates\u201d the user prong with the statute’s separate \u201caddict\u201d prong. \u201c[T]ell me how [that\u2019s] so clear,\u201d he pressed the principal deputy solicitor general.<\/p>\n

Yet in his majority opinion, Gorsuch chose not to focus on vagueness but on the Second Amendment \u2013 or at least it appears that way at first blush. Gorsuch surveyed the Founding-era treatment of \u201chabitual drunkards\u201d under the Second Amendment (a category of persons that the government contended was analogous to drug users) and concluded that those laws reached such people not because they used intoxicants regularly but because their drinking \u201crendered them practically incapacitated and incapable of managing their affairs.\u201d Measured against that tradition, the habitual-drunkard laws \u201cdiffer dramatically\u201d from Section 922(g)(3) \u201con every single metric the government invites us to consider: They targeted different kinds of people, did so for different purposes, and operated in different ways.\u201d<\/p>\n

As to vagueness, the opinion said nothing expressly. But the majority\u2019s stated discomfort with Hemani\u2019s prosecution is actually a vagueness intuition in Second Amendment dress. In the course of Gorsuch\u2019s constitutional analysis, he asked \u201chow much marijuana does Mr. Hemani use, in what potency, and to what effect? Is he routinely unable to manage his affairs, a risk to himself or his family?\u201d Or does he \u201cuse a mild gummy as a sleep aid a few times a week?\u201d The answer, Gorsuch noted, is that \u201c[w]e do not know and, the government says, it doesn’t matter.\u201d That is an objection to a prosecution under a statute that fails to provide a clean separation between the conduct it covers and that which it does not. The court felt the vagueness defect but answered it with Second Amendment analysis rather than naming it for what it was.<\/p>\n

That approach is somewhat surprising given that Gorsuch authored the majority opinion. As noted already, no justice pressed the indefiniteness of \u201cunlawful user\u201d harder at argument than he did, and none has done more in recent years to champion the and the closely related in opinions. Under the rule of lenity, courts are to construe unclear language in criminal statutes against the government.<\/p>\n

Read more A new wave of election cases<\/a><\/p>\n

So why didn\u2019t Gorsuch address the vagueness concerns head on? The likeliest explanation is institutional. He was writing for the court, not for himself. A majority opinion must hold its majority, and squarely embracing a vagueness angle may have risked fracturing the seven-justice coalition. The assignment to write the majority opinion may have dictated restraint in this case. In the past, Gorsuch has had a difficult time attracting more than one or two of his colleagues to the robust vagueness or lenity rationales he has articulated in concurring opinions; most of his colleagues have preferred other rationales that they likely perceive as more modest.<\/p>\n

Indeed, restraint may have been the point of the assignment. When the chief justice is in the majority (as he was here), he decides who writes the majority opinion. If he wanted to keep the vagueness questions out of the spotlight, handing the pen to Gorsuch was a shrewd way to do it. The author of the majority opinion must speak for the court, while a justice left to write separately may speak more freely. Assigning Gorsuch the majority opinion captured his vote and may have prevented a concurring opinion in which Gorsuch would have made the matter of vagueness impossible to ignore.<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Does any of this make a difference? As a practical matter, the court’s result is close to what my approach would have produced. My proposed construction of the statute drew one clear line \u2013 that the statute reaches those intoxicated while armed, and no one else. The majority, by contrast, declined to construe the statute at all. It concluded that the Second Amendment prevented Hemani\u2019s prosecution and went out of its way to stress that its decision was \u201cnarrow.\u201d The court made clear, for example, that its opinion did not address the possibility of disarming \u201caddicts\u201d or \u201cthose presently intoxicated,\u201d a prosecution under Section 922(g)(3) backed by \u201cindividualized proof that the defendant’s drug use renders him a danger to himself or others,\u201d or disarmament under a separate provision concerning convicted felons. But again, for Hemani and other marijuana users prosecuted on the same theory, the practical result is identical to what I sought.<\/p>\n

Yet the reasoning matters in ways that will outlast this case. The point of construing the statute was never for Hemani\u2019s sake alone. A decision based on a narrow construction grounded in a generic rule would have given lower courts a tool for the next vague criminal statute, and the one after that. The court\u2019s constitutional holding in Hemani<\/em> offers nothing portable \u2013 it is welded to Section 922(g)(3) and to the Second Amendment’s history-and-tradition test. And it is ad hoc: a fact-bound ruling that announces no general principle.<\/p>\n

The court\u2019s decision does not even settle Section 922(g)(3) itself. As described, we still cannot say whether the government may prosecute someone presently intoxicated while armed, an addict, or a user whose history differs from Hemani\u2019s by a degree. Each must now be litigated case by case, through the same laborious search of the historical record, inviting exactly what Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned about in her concurring opinion \u2013 \u201cinconsistent and arbitrary application, as judges draw different conclusions from the same historical evidence and reach divergent assessments of the same laws.\u201d<\/p>\n

Following the decision in Hemani<\/em>, the statutory phrase \u201cunlawful user\u201d remains on the menu of federal crimes a prosecutor may invoke, and it still does not tell us exactly who is covered. The court did not strike the statute and tell Congress to say clearly who should be disarmed. It instead told prosecutors to build a stronger record that a particular drug’s users are dangerous, and try again.<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

None of this dims the good news. The court\u2019s decision in Hemani<\/em> did defeat a truly alarming theory of prosecutorial power. Gorsuch correctly chastised the government for attempting to turn certain drug use into a basis for lifetime disarmament on its bare say-so. And the vagueness argument survives for the next defendant and the next statute.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, the court refused to name the defect that its own questions at argument exposed \u2013 that the real trouble with Section 922(g)(3) is not its tension with the right to keep and bear arms, but its failure to define the line between criminal conduct and lawful conduct. The court did not so much resolve that problem as redescribe it, and a vagueness problem in Second Amendment dress is a vagueness problem still. The next court to face Section 922(g)(3) would do better to call it by its name. Given the refusal to do so in Hemani<\/em>, the justices themselves may face that choice sooner rather than later.<\/p>\n

Read more Cameras in the courtroom?<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Please note that SCOTUS Outside Opinions constitute the views of outside contributors and do not\u00a0necessarily\u00a0reflect the opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff. Read more Hemani: proving the reason, not just naming it Last week, the Supreme Court decided the case of United States v. Hemani in the defendant\u2019s favor. The government had prosecuted Ali Hemani […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":222,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-223","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-commentary","category-scotus-outside-opinions"],"yoast_head":"\nA victory for the defendant in United States v. Hemani, but little guidance for the lower courts - American Service Review<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=223\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A victory for the defendant in United States v. Hemani, but little guidance for the lower courts - American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Please note that SCOTUS Outside Opinions constitute the views of outside contributors and do not\u00a0necessarily\u00a0reflect the opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff. Read more Hemani: proving the reason, not just naming it Last week, the Supreme Court decided the case of United States v. Hemani in the defendant\u2019s favor. The government had prosecuted Ali Hemani […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=223\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-06-22T14:17:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=223#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=223\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"headline\":\"A victory for the defendant in United States v. Hemani, but little guidance for the lower courts\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-22T14:17:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=223\"},\"wordCount\":1627,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=223#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/7541056e23946428724c62adf9d588cf.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Commentary\",\"SCOTUS OUTSIDE OPINIONS\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=223#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=223\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=223\",\"name\":\"A victory for the defendant in United States v. Hemani, but little guidance for the lower courts - American Service Review\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=223#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=223#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/7541056e23946428724c62adf9d588cf.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-22T14:17:28+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=223#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=223\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=223#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/7541056e23946428724c62adf9d588cf.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/7541056e23946428724c62adf9d588cf.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":627},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=223#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A victory for the defendant in United States v. Hemani, but little guidance for the lower courts\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"American Service Review\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A victory for the defendant in United States v. Hemani, but little guidance for the lower courts - American Service Review","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=223","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A victory for the defendant in United States v. Hemani, but little guidance for the lower courts - American Service Review","og_description":"Please note that SCOTUS Outside Opinions constitute the views of outside contributors and do not\u00a0necessarily\u00a0reflect the opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff. Read more Hemani: proving the reason, not just naming it Last week, the Supreme Court decided the case of United States v. Hemani in the defendant\u2019s favor. The government had prosecuted Ali Hemani […]","og_url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=223","og_site_name":"American Service Review","article_published_time":"2026-06-22T14:17:28+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=223#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=223"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"headline":"A victory for the defendant in United States v. Hemani, but little guidance for the lower courts","datePublished":"2026-06-22T14:17:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=223"},"wordCount":1627,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=223#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/7541056e23946428724c62adf9d588cf.jpg","articleSection":["Commentary","SCOTUS OUTSIDE OPINIONS"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=223#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=223","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=223","name":"A victory for the defendant in United States v. Hemani, but little guidance for the lower courts - American Service Review","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=223#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=223#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/7541056e23946428724c62adf9d588cf.jpg","datePublished":"2026-06-22T14:17:28+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=223#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=223"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=223#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/7541056e23946428724c62adf9d588cf.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/7541056e23946428724c62adf9d588cf.jpg","width":1200,"height":627},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=223#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A victory for the defendant in United States v. Hemani, but little guidance for the lower courts"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/","name":"American Service Review","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/americanservicereview.com"],"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=223"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/222"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=223"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=223"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=223"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}