Opinion Summary: Wolford v. Lopez | Permission Slip Flopped

Wolford v. Lopez | Case No. 24-1046 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: January 20, 2026 | Decided: June 25, 2026 **Overview:** After Bruen recognized the right to public carry, Hawaii required licensed gun carriers to obtain express permission before entering any private business open to the public — reversing the common-law presumption of open entry for anyone, including armed citizens. **Question Presented:** Whether Hawaii may prohibit licensed carry permit holders from entering private commercial property while armed without the property owner's express permission. **Posture:** District court enjoined the law; Ninth Circuit reversed; Supreme Court granted certiorari. **Main Arguments:** - Petitioner (Carry Permit Holders): - (1) Hawaii's law burdens the daily exercise of Second Amendment rights by effectively banning carry on ninety-six percent of publicly accessible land; - (2) No historical tradition justifies flipping the common-law default from implied permission to presumptive prohibition on property open to the public; - (3) Hawaii's anti-poaching analogues targeted agricultural land and distinct hunting harms — not concealed carry in commercial establishments. - Respondent (Hawaii): - (1) The Second Amendment never protected armed entry onto private property without consent — the form of that consent belongs to state property law; - (2) Colonial anti-poaching laws and Reconstruction-era statutes support a tradition of requiring affirmative consent for armed carry onto private property; - (3) Hawaii's law vindicates property owners' right to exclude by requiring armed visitors to seek express permission before entry. **Holding:** Hawaii's law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner's express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. **Voting Breakdown:** 6-3. Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion in which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined as to Part II–B only. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Sotomayor. Reversed and remanded. **Majority Reasoning:** - (1) Hawaii's law falls within the Second Amendment's plain text — permit holders sought to "bear" "Arms" in public, making the law presumptively unconstitutional; - (2) Hawaii's colonial anti-poaching analogues targeted agricultural land and hunting-specific harms vastly different from restricting concealed carry in commercial establishments; - (3) Hawaii's 1865 Louisiana Black Code analogue — enacted to disarm newly freed Black Americans — carries no probative value under the Bruen framework. **Separate Opinions:** - Barrett (concurring; Thomas and Gorsuch join as to Part II–B only): Property-law framing doesn't immunize Hawaii's law from Second Amendment scrutiny. States may not use property rules to evade constitutional limits. Anti-poaching laws and Black Codes both fail Bruen's "why" inquiry. Thomas and Gorsuch joined only the Black Code portion. - Kagan (dissenting): Anti-poaching laws share sufficient "how" and "why" with Hawaii's rule — both required express consent for armed entry onto private property in response to harms posed by armed individuals on another's land. Kagan dissented solely on the historical analogue question. - Jackson (dissenting; Sotomayor joins): This case never implicated the Second Amendment — the dispute concerns only the form of consent required for armed entry onto private property, a question state property law controls. Hawaii's historical analogues satisfy Bruen. The majority invites unconstrained judicial discretion. **Implications:** - (1) Carry permit holders may now enter commercial property in Hawaii, California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York absent an owner's posted prohibition; - (2) Business owners now bear the burden of posting signage to exclude armed visitors; - (3) Courts must apply a stricter historical analogue standard to Second Amendment challenges. **The Fine Print:** - Second Amendment, U.S. Const. Amdt. 2: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-9.5(a) (2023): "A \[licensed] person carrying a firearm \[may not] intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly enter or remain on private property of another person while carrying a loaded or unloaded firearm, whether the firearm is operable or not, and whether the firearm is concealed or unconcealed, unless the person has been given express authorization to carry a firearm on the property by the owner, lessee, operator, or manager of the property." **Primary Cases:** - New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (2022): Established the two-step framework for Second Amendment challenges — requiring States to justify gun regulations through history and tradition, rejecting interest-balancing tests. - District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, with self-defense as the core purpose; history governs the right's scope. **Oral Advocates:** - **For Petitioner (Wolford):** Alan A. Beck, San Diego, California. - **For United States (as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner):** Sarah M. Harris, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice argues. - **For Respondent (Lopez):** Neal K. Katyal, Washington, D.C.