← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Wolford v. Lopez

No. 24-1046 SCOTUS · Decided SCOTUS
Cert Granted: Oct 3, 2025 Argued: Jan 20, 2026 Decided: Jun 25, 2026
📄 Read the Opinion

Bruen test General use Second Amendment general use requirement right to carry arms in public

Decision

6-3
Opinion Alito, J.
Concurrence Barrett, J. (joined by Thomas and Gorsuch as to Part II-B)
Dissent Kagan, J.
Dissent Jackson, J., joined by Sotomayor, J.

Legal Issues

Bruen testGeneral useSecond Amendmentgeneral use requirementright to carry arms in public

BrynoDC Coverage 1 video


The Law · How the Case Works

Opinion of the Court

Alito, J.

Overview

Overview

This is a U.S. Supreme Court case about whether Hawaii's law presumptively banning carrying firearms on private property open to the public, unless the owner gives express consent, violates the Second Amendment under the standard set in Bruen. The case was argued before the Court on the same day, with oral arguments presented by both sides and questions from the justices. No decision or ruling has been issued yet, as the case is currently awaiting the Court's judgment.

The Facts

Facts

Following the Supreme Court's Bruen decision establishing a historical-tradition test for Second Amendment challenges, Hawaii enacted a law presumptively banning firearms on private property open to the public, restaurants, stores, and parks, unless the owner explicitly consents. Gun owners challenged the law as an unconstitutional restriction on the right to bear arms in public, creating a significant test of how broadly states may designate 'sensitive places.'

The Issue

Issue

Whether Hawaii's law presumptively banning firearms on private property open to the public, absent affirmative owner consent, comports with the Second Amendment's text, history, and tradition as articulated in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The Rules

Rule

Under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), a firearms regulation is constitutional only if it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The government bears the burden of identifying a historical analogue from the founding era. The Second Amendment presumptively protects the right to keep and bear commonly used arms in locations traditionally open to law-abiding citizens.

The Application

Analysis

Petitioners argue ordinary commercial spaces, restaurants, shops, parks, are not 'sensitive places' under Bruen's framework. Hawaii's default-prohibition scheme flips the constitutional presumption: licensed carriers should be able to carry everywhere unless specifically restricted. No founding-era tradition supports blanket bans on firearms in ordinary commercial establishments.

The Conclusion

Conclusion

[Awaiting opinion]

The Record · 1 original document
Court -
FiledDec 13, 2024
CL Statusterminated
View on CourtListener →

No circuit court data for this case.

Cert GrantedOct 3, 2025
Statusterminated
Filed (CL)Dec 13, 2024
View on CourtListener →

Decision

6-3
Opinion Alito, J.
Concurrence Barrett, J. (joined by Thomas and Gorsuch as to Part II-B)
Dissent Kagan, J.
Dissent Jackson, J., joined by Sotomayor, J.
SCOTUS TMR-4e067cf0 Jul 28, 2026

Related by Concept (1)

Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support