...
By Dan Gooding
Associate News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The Supreme Court ruled against Hawaii's concealed carry laws, leading to liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sharply questioning her conservative colleague's priorities on Thursday.
The law in question required concealed carriers to get permission from business owners before entering privately owned but public spaces, like stores, restaurants and gas stations.
The Court ruled 6—3, along conservative and liberal lines, that Hawaii’s law violates the Second Amendment, finding it placed an unconstitutional burden on the right to carry weapons for self-defense.
Read More on U.S.
"Today’s decision makes one thing clear: The Court’s objective is protecting guns, not consistently preserving any principle of law," Jackson wrote, with Sotomayor joining.
The decision immediately blocks enforcement of the law and threatens similar restrictions in states like New York, California and New Jersey.
...
Hawaii's Concealed Carry Laws and Wolford v. Lopez
At the center of Wolford v. Lopez was a Hawaii law that made it illegal for licensed gun owners to carry concealed firearms onto private property open to the public, such as stores, restaurants and gas stations, unless the property owner explicitly gives permission.
The case was backed by the Trump administration while it was being litigated, with the Department of Justice filing a brief supporting the challengers and arguing Hawaii’s law violated the Second Amendment.
Gun-rights advocates argued the policy effectively nullified the constitutional right to carry weapons for self-defense recognized in the court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. They said the measure turned everyday locations into "no-carry" zones, making it nearly impossible to exercise that right in practice.
State officials countered that the law reflected long-established principles of property rights, arguing that business owners should decide whether firearms are allowed on their premises.
In a statement following the ruling, the Department of the Attorney General in Hawaii told Newsweek, "We are disappointed but respect the Court’s decision. The state of Hawaiʻi will continue to pursue common-sense regulation of firearms, consistent with the Second Amendment, for the safety of our people."
How It All Began
The legal fight began in 2023 after Hawaii enacted its new gun restrictions in response to Bruen. Gun owners and advocacy groups quickly challenged the law in federal court, and a district judge initially blocked parts of it.
...
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit later allowed much of the law to take effect, including the provision requiring permission for carrying firearms on private property open to the public.
That ruling helped create a broader legal conflict, as other federal courts have taken different approaches to similar laws. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in October 2025, setting up a major test of its own recent Second Amendment precedent.
The justices heard oral arguments on January 20, 2026.
What Did the Supreme Court Justices Say?
Writing for the Court, Justice Samuel Alito said the measure "severely hampers" law-abiding citizens’ ability to carry weapons in everyday places like stores and restaurants, and rejected Hawaii’s reliance on historical analogs as too far removed from modern public carry.
Jackson argued that Hawaii’s law regulates property rights, not gun rights, saying there has never been a constitutional right to carry firearms onto private property without the owner’s consent and that states have long set the terms of that consent.
She accused the majority of distorting its own Second Amendment test to favor gun owners, warning the ruling reflects a broader pattern of "protecting guns" at the expense of longstanding legal principles and state authority to regulate safety.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing separately, said Hawaii’s law fit within a longstanding tradition of requiring permission to carry guns on private land and criticized the majority for applying an overly rigid historical test.
The dispute emerged as a key test of how far states can go in regulating firearms after Bruen, which significantly expanded protections for public carry.
During arguments, several conservative justices appeared skeptical of Hawaii’s approach. Justice Samuel Alito suggested the law treats the Second Amendment as a "second-class" right, while Chief Justice John Roberts questioned why individuals would need permission to carry a firearm into a business when other constitutional rights do not face similar barriers.
At the same time, liberal justices signaled concerns about expanding gun rights into privately owned spaces. Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised questions about whether the Constitution has ever been understood to guarantee a right to carry a firearm onto someone else’s property without consent.
The divide reflects a broader tension in the case: whether it should primarily be understood as a gun-rights dispute or a property-rights question.
Which States Currently Have Laws Prohibiting Concealed Carry?
No state bans concealed carry outright, but a handful effectively restrict it in most public-facing private spaces.
In states with default ban-style laws, including New York, California, New Jersey, Maryland, and Hawaii, carrying a concealed firearm on private property open to the public, such as stores and restaurants, is generally illegal unless the owner explicitly allows it.
Which States Are Impacted by the Decision?
The ruling is likely to have immediate consequences beyond Hawaii, as several Democrat-led states, including New York, California, New Jersey and Maryland, adopted near-identical “default ban” policies after the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, effectively requiring explicit permission from property owners before guns could be carried in most publicly accessible private spaces.
By rejecting Hawaii’s approach, the Court signaled that these laws are constitutionally suspect. This could open the door to legal challenges and potential invalidation across multiple jurisdictions.
In practical terms, the decision could significantly expand where licensed gun owners can carry firearms, shifting the default rule nationwide back toward allowing carry in businesses and other everyday locations unless owners explicitly prohibit it.
What Is the United States v. Hemani Case?
The court also issued a decision last week related to gun control and the Second Amendment. At the center of Hemani is a federal law dating back decades that makes it a crime for anyone who is an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance to possess a firearm.
The defendant, Ali Danial Hemani, was charged after federal agents found a handgun in his home along with marijuana and cocaine. Prosecutors did not claim he was intoxicated at the time he possessed the firearm, but argued that his status as a regular drug user alone was enough to trigger the prohibition.
Hemani challenged the charge, arguing that the law violates the Second Amendment—particularly when applied to individuals who are not actively impaired. Lower courts sided with him, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit holding that the Constitution does not support disarming someone solely because of past or ongoing drug use if they are otherwise law-abiding and sober.
The Biden administration appealed, arguing that there is a long historical tradition of banning firearm possession by individuals considered dangerous, including those impaired by drugs.
In a 9-0 ruling, the justices held that applying a longstanding federal law to Hemani based solely on his admitted marijuana use violated the U.S. Constitution.
The Hemani case placed the Trump administration in an unusual position. While it has aggressively promoted gun rights and challenged state-level restrictions, its Justice Department has urged the Supreme Court to uphold a federal law banning firearm possession by drug users.
The statute applies even to marijuana users in states where the drug is legal, and a ruling against the government could weaken federal authority to disarm entire categories of people.
Taken alongside Wolford v. Lopez, which focuses on where guns can be carried, the cases together highlight a central tension in the administration’s approach: expanding access to firearms while maintaining some limits on who can legally possess them.
What Happens Next
Together, these cases are likely to shape the next chapter of Second Amendment law, defining not just the scope of the right to carry firearms, but also its limits.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Gray R. Thomas
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines